Developing Infra-Vision

[Jozen-Bo]

OK...this is simple. I have been conducting experimentation and at one time found myself seeing with infra-vision in total darkness. The experimentation is oriented around the eyes. There have been many, many other observations that get very strange and dive into, for lack of better words, the paranormal. The problem is, none of them can be controlled, they occur unpredictably so I can toss that out for the challenge. For example...if I see energy radiating out of someone's brain how do I prove it? I can't even be certain if thinking caused it, I don't have enough to make that sort of evaluation...though I speculate that it would be a possibility.

I believe that the infra-vision can be reproduced. Several people have told me I should take the challenge because of this, but that I had to claim it was paranormal, and this is the problem...I don't think it is. I think that it can be studied and determined to by a biological change brought on by a given method. A few other people have tried this and noted they could begin seeing what they couldn't before, it appears that it can be reproduced.

I am currently planning on performing an experiment to collect statistical proof that something of interest is going on. I will be collecting the proof on camera. This, however, once again has little to do with paranormal, it is scientific...relying on many fields; one of which is psychology.


I don't know what to do about the paranormal experiences, or even how to begin to prove they are happening. The work of mine is such that it involves both that which can be observed and explained and that which cannot be. That which can be I believe does not find itself within the labeling range of paranormal and that which can't easily fits this label.

For example: warping the consciousness into a parallel universe. Not only is this extremely difficult to reproduce (especially with my equipment), how could I proof it if I was successful (a possible solution just now donned upon me...)? My body would remain here in this universe in a comatose state and, considering how the transfer takes place, nothing of solid matter gets moved...so I couldn't collect any evidence and come back with it.


I figure it like this, if I can display that it is possible to develop infra-vision I won't need to make the challenge, such an astonishing discovery would be worth a lot on its own. It is looking like I am going to have both enough time and money to begin doing much more research, and the project I am primarily focused on does not involve developing this ability. So I am considering if I should set aside some time for it or not. It would most likely suck up about 20 minutes to 30 minutes of my time if I do. I am very busy, so I will do some calculating, though perhaps some words I find here will either motivate or convince me one way or another...perhaps?

[paximperium]

Right...ignoring everything else.

Simple question, what makes you think that you have "infra-vision"(a term, I doubt you seem to really get) and not some other visual anomaly from being in total darkness?

PS: Making vague, "I don't need to get tested by a neutral party because I'm testing it myself and I'm going to be rich." smells worst than Sylvia Brown. If that was the case, why don't you keep to yourself until you've "proven" it instead of wasting everyone's time here?

[IMST]

For example...if I see energy radiating out of someone's brain how do I prove it?

This part of your claimed ability seems like a good starting point for a self test. See if you can see this energy through an opaque barrier. Get someone who's brain energy you can see to move a piece of newspaper between their head and you while you are observing. If you can still see the energy, you can design a controlled test where you won't be able to see someone directly, but will be able to see them with your ability.

[Ladewig]

Several people have told me I should take the challenge because of this, but that I had to claim it was paranormal, and this is the problem...I don't think it is.

Not a problem at all. The MDC involves things that Randi thinks are paranormal. For instance, many dowsers think that their ability is not paranormal, but Randi thinks it is so dowsing is an activity eligible for the MDC.

In any case, feel free to contact the JREF directly for their take on what is or isn't eligible.

[Floyt]

Your eyes can detect more than you might think, including X-rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Ray#Visibility_to_the_human_eye); on the other hand, especially in very-low-light conditions, they will do their darndest to post-process anything you CAN see, which can produce a lot of odd effects. I hope you'll be reading up on that before you go ahead :)

[Jozen-Bo]

Right...ignoring everything else.

Not sure what you mean by this?

Simple question, what makes you think that you have "infra-vision"(a term, I doubt you seem to really get) and not some other visual anomaly from being in total darkness?

I've had this discussion before a couple of times. I could see my body with ease, though it only appeared reddish to a black background. I could make out the edges of the walls, see the door handle, and easily move around without worry of bumping. No windows, no light source of any sort. German walls are thick concrete stones that allow no light to come through. It was similar to what you may of seen in a film where infra-vision is displayed, but not exactly the same either.

What else could it be that would allow one to see in total pitch black darkness. I stood there in the dark and looked at my hands and surroundings in amazement, even made several hand gestures and it took me a little time to accept that it was really happening.

PS: Making vague, "I don't need to get tested by a neutral party because I'm testing it myself and I'm going to be rich." smells worst than Sylvia Brown. If that was the case, why don't you keep to yourself until you've "proven" it instead of wasting everyone's time here?

Big woop on this. Before I begin with the invitations for neutral party testing, I need to give them something to consider. Statements, as anyone whose been here for some time, don't add up to that. The evidence I am collecting will be make disputing difficult...if I get those results. Then again, I might not reveal any of it, because I am aware of how valuable Intellectual Data is when it holds up on its own.


As to your comparison and advice...I find your composure slightly rude and bitter. That does not make me feel like complying. Try using some manners, please. Why don't you...stop wasting your time telling others what to do and comparing them when you know nothing about them? If someone wants to interact, here, in these forums, on this topic, what business is it of yours to interfere?

Smells like bias and inconsideration on your behalf...

[Jozen-Bo]

Not a problem at all. The MDC involves things that Randi thinks are paranormal. For instance, many dowsers think that their ability is not paranormal, but Randi thinks it is so dowsing is an activity eligible for the MDC.

In any case, feel free to contact the JREF directly for their take on what is or isn't eligible.

Based on your reply, I will follow up on that.

Thank You!

[jimtron]

Jozen-Bo: Welcome. As has been pointed out, you don't need to worry about whether you think this is paranormal or not. But you'll have to get more specific about your claim before you apply. Be sure to read the MCD rules and FAQ.

Could you describe, as specifically as possible, what "infra-vision" means to you? Also, how do you know you have this ability?

- Jim

[jimtron]

What else could it be that would allow one to see in total pitch black darkness.If you can see in total darkness without the aid of night goggles, etc, I would think that would be pretty easy to test (and eligible for the MDC I think, though only a few of us on the forum can speak for JREF). If someone held up a sign with a number on it--in complete darkness--could you accurately identify the number? Even if it's say, 6 digits or so?

[Jozen-Bo]

Your eyes can detect more than you might think, including X-rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Ray#Visibility_to_the_human_eye); on the other hand, especially in very-low-light conditions, they will do their darndest to post-process anything you CAN see, which can produce a lot of odd effects. I hope you'll be reading up on that before you go ahead :)

I have already done a good amount of research looking for answers on this one. I have seen very well before in low light conditions, the difference in this case was that there was no light source whatsoever, not even the slightest. Think...deep in a cave with no glowing mushrooms dark...

Despite looking all over for answers, I'll check out your link. It is always possible to miss something and then someone else helps you find it.

Thank You.

[jimtron]

Jozen-Bo: Just wondering if you could do this in a lit room but with a blindfold or something over your head to block your vision--that might be a little easier to test. But I think the dark room test would work too, but it would be a bit trickier for observers to see what's happening.

[Jozen-Bo]

Jozen-Bo: Welcome. As has been pointed out, you don't need to worry about whether you think this is paranormal or not. But you'll have to get more specific about your claim before you apply. Be sure to read the MCD rules and FAQ.

Could you describe, as specifically as possible, what "infra-vision" means to you? Also, how do you know you have this ability?

- Jim

Ok.

Infra-red vision is the ability to see and distinguish surrounds by observing various degrees of temperature, for example, a warm-blooded animal would stand out in a cold surrounding. It is within another portion of the electro-magnetic spectrum that is not visible to humans...not within what we call the visible light portion. Continuing in this direction on the spectrum, we find that short-wave and long wave radio waves follow, that is going from visible to infra-red to short-wave radio waves to long-wave.


As to seeing the X-rays, as noted above, I find this difficult to grasp when following from the visible spectrum opposite of the infra-red is the ultra-violet. Wouldn't we see that first before seeing the X-rays? So or so...I am curious and will be checking out that link.


At this moment I don't have the ability. If my speculation is correct, then I can develop this ability by repeating what I did last time when it was triggered. Unlike many of the other observations, this one is the most promising of which can be reproduced and controlled. My estimates is that it would take about 6 months to fully pin...that is, to develop to such an extent that I have no problem nor concern if tested.

[Jozen-Bo]

Jozen-Bo: Just wondering if you could do this in a lit room but with a blindfold or something over your head to block your vision--that might be a little easier to test. But I think the dark room test would work too, but it would be a bit trickier for observers to see what's happening.

Can you see infra-red light waves through a blind fold? If so, that should work. As to the dark room, using a camera that can detect ultra-violet light, others could observe what I was doing while I shouldn't be able to see, unless I was a cat, which I am not.

[jimtron]

Could you read a sign with a number written on it, in a dark room? How about numbers or letters that are warmer or colder than room temperature in darkness--AFAIK, with infrared you can see changes in temperature.

[Jozen-Bo]

If you can see in total darkness without the aid of night goggles, etc, I would think that would be pretty easy to test (and eligible for the MDC I think, though only a few of us on the forum can speak for JREF). If someone held up a sign with a number on it--in complete darkness--could you accurately identify the number? Even if it's say, 6 digits or so?

I am not sure, to be honest. Considering how well I saw, I know I could make out the shape of the paper. I think my chances would go up if the numbers where engraved or grooved, rather then written, because I recall seeing edges very clearly. If a chemical was used as ink that produced heat but not visible light, that would likely work too. I could, for example, put a key in the key hole without missing, over and over again.


What has been recommended by a friend is what he called the light bulb test. Turn a light off after having it on for a few minutes. It will still be hot. Putting this on a board with 20 other light bulbs, which weren't on, and then quickly moving this board into the dark room, I should be able to say which light was on. I think that is how he described it...However, if I do get tested then I figure let JREF put together the test.

[jhunter1163]

I'm not sure how paranormal this is. I happen to have exceptional night vision. I can read by light levels which would be considered "total darkness" by most.

ETA: It does sound like an interesting ability to test, though.

[Jozen-Bo]

Could you read a sign with a number written on it, in a dark room? How about numbers or letters that are warmer or colder than room temperature in darkness--AFAIK, with infrared you can see changes in temperature.

Written...I doubt it.

Engraved numbers....I believe so.

Numbers with varying temperatures...I believe so.

[Jozen-Bo]

I'm not sure how paranormal this is. I happen to have exceptional night vision. I can read by light levels which would be considered "total darkness" by most.

I'm not sure how paranormal this is either.

What I am speaking of is not what is considered total darkness, but what is total darkness. Unless you could read in total darkness, you would not be able to read in the sort of darkness I am speaking of. Could you read a book with no light source of any kind?

[Jozen-Bo]

This part of your claimed ability seems like a good starting point for a self test. See if you can see this energy through an opaque barrier. Get someone who's brain energy you can see to move a piece of newspaper between their head and you while you are observing. If you can still see the energy, you can design a controlled test where you won't be able to see someone directly, but will be able to see them with your ability.

I haven't managed to control this one ever. It would happen on its own. I think I could reproduce this random sensation in others too, given that they performed the same methods I did to develop it. I can't think of another way of reproducing this one.

The experiment requires several days to build up the affects. At first, I might notice a few lucid strands of what appears to be energy waves coming out of someone's head, but only for a quick second. I would see this maybe once or twice a week. Then once or twice a day. Then I begin to see it in varying degrees of intensity, though consistent throughout most of the day. Then, after stopping the experiment, my vision slowly returned back to normal and now I see nothing unusual. I have no doubt that I can repeat this, however I don't know how to control it on command once my eyes are adjusted.

[jimtron]

What's the strongest evidence so far that you have a special ability?

[Jozen-Bo]

What's the strongest evidence so far that you have a special ability?

I've had many experiences and made many observations, though I find it difficult to figure out how to make them evident to others. The strongest case I can think about was seeing in the dark. I'm not sure yet if that could be considered an ability that is special to myself or one that could be developed by anyone repeating the method. I suspect that latter.

[jimtron]

I've had many experiences and made many observations, though I find it difficult to figure out how to make them evident to others. The strongest case I can think about was seeing in the dark. I'm not sure yet if that could be considered an ability that is special to myself or one that could be developed by anyone repeating the method. I suspect that latter.

If you do have special abilities, like seeing things that only an infrared camera would see (but could not normally be seen by a naked eye), that should be pretty easy to test. Try some tests with friends. For example, in a completely darkened room, they could put an object on a table that's warm or cold--you identify the shape. Or if you can see anything in the dark, have them roll a pair of dice and write the number that comes up on a piece of paper. Just make sure the room truly is completely dark though.

Actually, this could be done in a light room with you saying whether an object is cold or hot, right? Do some tests and let us know how they go. If you need help with determining test conditions, we can help. Good luck.

[Jozen-Bo]

If you do have special abilities, like seeing things that only an infrared camera would see (but could not normally be seen by a naked eye), that should be pretty easy to test. Try some tests with friends. For example, in a completely darkened room, they could put an object on a table that's warm or cold--you identify the shape. Or if you can see anything in the dark, have them roll a pair of dice and write the number that comes up on a piece of paper. Just make sure the room truly is completely dark though.

Actually, this could be done in a light room with you saying whether an object is cold or hot, right? Do some tests and let us know how they go. If you need help with determining test conditions, we can help. Good luck.

Thank you for the advice. It will take time to get my eyes readjusted again, but I will literally be looking into this.


Best Regards,
Jozen-Bo

[Ernie M]

Jozen-Bo,

When you say you can see different temperatures by using your purported infrared vision, what temperature range do you claim to see? And, at what increments?

I highly doubt your eyes can see the infrared spectrum without the aid of say, an infrared camera.
The human eye has rods and cones, and can typically see visible light, from 400-700 nm.
The infrared spectrum is roughly from 750 nm-100 µm, which is not visible to the unaided human eye.

Here's one example about the electromagnetic spectrum (http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/index.html).

Go get an eye exam.

[Earthborn]

I highly doubt your eyes can see the infrared spectrum without the aid of say, an infrared camera.
The human eye has rods and cones, and can typically see visible light, from 400-700 nm.
The infrared spectrum is roughly from 750 nm-100 µm, which is not visible to the unaided human eye.There is no clear cut off point however between which wavelengths are visible and which aren't. If the infrared is bright enough, it is possible to see if the "visible light" is blocked. Link (http://amasci.com/amateur/irgoggl.html) Video Link (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/746423/infrared_goggle_hack_for_under_10/).

It isn't very likely that inside a building there would be enough infrared light for a normal person to see, unless there are some bright infrared lamps. But it would not be entirely out of the question that someone had a mutation that allows him/her to have eyes much more sensitive to infrared.

[Akhenaten]

I've had many experiences and made many observations, though I find it difficult to figure out how to make them evident to others.


That's the whole problem with having super powers isn't it? Despite having an ability that would change the world, the empowered are always prevented in some way from producing a simple demonstration. It must be very frustrating.


The strongest case I can think about was seeing in the dark. I'm not sure yet if that could be considered an ability that is special to myself or one that could be developed by anyone repeating the method. I suspect that latter.


Humans have spent thousands of years developing low/zero light devices ranging from candles to Forward-Looking Infra Red cameras. Do you think this would have happened if people could simply train themselves to see in the dark?

Demonstrating this shouldn't be too hard. To start with, here's a list of what you'll need to conduct a test:


an assistant with an iron bar, suitable for swinging wildly in the dark.

a darkened, room-sized space

yourself

I'm confident that a test can be devised with these items which will provide completely self-evident results.

[Jozen-Bo]

Jozen-Bo,

When you say you can see different temperatures by using your purported infrared vision, what temperature range do you claim to see? And, at what increments?

I highly doubt your eyes can see the infrared spectrum without the aid of say, an infrared camera.
The human eye has rods and cones, and can typically see visible light, from 400-700 nm.
The infrared spectrum is roughly from 750 nm-100 µm, which is not visible to the unaided human eye.

Here's one example about the electromagnetic spectrum (http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/index.html).

Go get an eye exam.

I know about the 400-700 nm for visible light, as well as the 750 nm to 100 µm. I know that this latter range is not visible to an unaided eye. That is why this stands out. If we ever do see a tiny bit from that portion, it is most likely closer to the 750 nm range and far from the 100 µm range, and more likely only after the eyes are well adjusted from low illumination.

I've spent much time studying both the eyes and electromagnetic energy, I am familiar with what your talking about. The rods and cones in the eyes are broken down to two groups, rods that detect red, green, and blue parts of the spectrum and those that do not detect color, but illumination. Under low lighting conditions they become active while the color detecting photo-receptor cells (the technical name for the cells) become less active. It is these cells from the latter group in which we use to see in darkness, however they do not function in total darkness.


As to the temperature range, it seemed fairly limited, though enough to make out the shapes. I saw in red and bluish-black only and the red outlining was faint. When I looked at my arms and hands, they were slightly more red, while the cold walls where bluish-black and the edges had a slight redness that made distinguishing them possible. I'd say based on this, that the range falls between that of human body temperature and what you'd expect to see from a cold stone wall, probably around 50-60 degrees fahrenheit.

[Jozen-Bo]

There is no clear cut off point however between which wavelengths are visible and which aren't. If the infrared is bright enough, it is possible to see if the "visible light" is blocked. Link (http://amasci.com/amateur/irgoggl.html) Video Link (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/746423/infrared_goggle_hack_for_under_10/).

It isn't very likely that inside a building there would be enough infrared light for a normal person to see, unless there are some bright infrared lamps. But it would not be entirely out of the question that someone had a mutation that allows him/her to have eyes much more sensitive to infrared.

I find what your saying to be interesting, we do not all share the exact same proportions of anatomy, I read about a doctor who'd cut open hundred of cadabras while he was still a student and noted that one liver might be twice and big as the other, or a heart or stomach may be as much as three times bigger. Basically, the proportions vary greatly. It would seem highly likely then that this applies to the eyes, only with smaller proportional differences. We see evidence of this in that many people wear glasses while others don't.

However, the individual cells tend to share the same proportions. I say tends to, because there are many studied cases and documents and pictures of aberrant cells that are also smaller or bigger then normal. Yes, mutations do occur, I discussed this on a DNA forums and it was common knowledge there, the sun's gamma rays, for example, bring about minute mutations in all of us, though they are so small we rarely ever notice them, and most of the mutations aren't good ones.


I've considered mutation myself. This is what I suspect most of all. It appears to myself that I was not born with this mutation of the cell's that allowed such to happen, but that after exposing them to the conditions I have they mutated. After ceasing this exposure they slowly returned to normal. One thing is certain, the exposure changes the ocular organs. We do not normally see light waves coming into the eyes as rotating attractions, and light waves burn the cells, leaving impressions upon them, which causes them to release bio-chemicals that eventually end up as electrons fired through the central optical nerves and into the back of the brain. From there, the brain steps the wave-particles through 3 chambers to refine the sensation into the experience we perceive.


Considering the complexity of this process, it is possible that there are many sorts of tweaks that can occur, some of which could provide extra-sensory, while most simply providing distortions.

[Jozen-Bo]

That's the whole problem with having super powers isn't it? Despite having an ability that would change the world, the empowered are always prevented in some way from producing a simple demonstration. It must be very frustrating.

Superpowers? Do I have super powers??? Maybe??? If so, then I would assume we all have super powers. In other words, I am saying I am no different then anyone else, with one exception as testing in middle school revealed. The results where basically that I could navigate through geometric puzzles faster then any kid the professional tester ever witnessed, after 20 years in the field. He said I possess a mind that was less then 1 in a million. But, that isn't a super power is it?

Providing a way to prove I am perceiving or have perceived many things that do not fall under the category of normal IS frustrating. But again, these where developed, I wasn't born with them. Thus, I do not believe that they are super powers.


Humans have spent thousands of years developing low/zero light devices ranging from candles to Forward-Looking Infra Red cameras. Do you think this would have happened if people could simply train themselves to see in the dark?

Demonstrating this shouldn't be too hard. To start with, here's a list of what you'll need to conduct a test:


an assistant with an iron bar, suitable for swinging wildly in the dark.

a darkened, room-sized space

yourself

I'm confident that a test can be devised with these items which will provide completely self-evident results.


Cute.

[Akhenaten]

My bold:

I have been conducting experimentation and at one time found myself seeing with infra-vision in total darkness.


It is these cells from the latter group in which we use to see in darkness, however they do not function in total darkness.


I think you need to go with either one or the other of these statements. The second one will give you less grief.



As to the temperature range, it seemed fairly limited, though enough to make out the shapes. I saw in red and bluish-black only and the red outlining was faint. When I looked at my arms and hands, they were slightly more red, while the cold walls where bluish-black and the edges had a slight redness that made distinguishing them possible. I'd say based on this, that the range falls between that of human body temperature and what you'd expect to see from a cold stone wall, probably around 50-60 degrees fahrenheit.


This is a much more reasonable claim than was made in the OP, and well within the bounds of possibility, perhaps similar to the way in which some women are endowed with extended colour vision. In fact, you may be a tetrachromat yourself, and it's definitely worth getting checked out.

Since you obviously know the subject well, I won't insult you with a wikireference to tetrachromacy, but I'll ask if this explanation had occurred to you.

[Akhenaten]

I find what your saying to be interesting, we do not all share the exact same proportions of anatomy, I read about a doctor who'd cut open hundred of cadabras while he was still a student and noted that one liver might be twice and big as the other, or a heart or stomach may be as much as three times bigger. Basically, the proportions vary greatly. It would seem highly likely then that this applies to the eyes, only with smaller proportional differences. We see evidence of this in that many people wear glasses while others don't.

However, the individual cells tend to share the same proportions. I say tends to, because there are many studied cases and documents and pictures of aberrant cells that are also smaller or bigger then normal. Yes, mutations do occur, I discussed this on a DNA forums and it was common knowledge there, the sun's gamma rays, for example, bring about minute mutations in all of us, though they are so small we rarely ever notice them, and most of the mutations aren't good ones.


I've considered mutation myself. This is what I suspect most of all. It appears to myself that I was not born with this mutation of the cell's that allowed such to happen, but that after exposing them to the conditions I have they mutated. After ceasing this exposure they slowly returned to normal. One thing is certain, the exposure changes the ocular organs. We do not normally see light waves coming into the eyes as rotating attractions, and light waves burn the cells, leaving impressions upon them, which causes them to release bio-chemicals that eventually end up as electrons fired through the central optical nerves and into the back of the brain. From there, the brain steps the wave-particles through 3 chambers to refine the sensation into the experience we perceive.


Considering the complexity of this process, it is possible that there are many sorts of tweaks that can occur, some of which could provide extra-sensory, while most simply providing distortions.



Since you obviously know the subject well, I won't insult you with a wikireference to tetrachromacy, but I'll ask if this explanation had occurred to you.


Tetrachromacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy)

[Jozen-Bo]

My bold:

...

I think you need to go with either one or the other of these statements. The second one will give you less grief.

I paused to get a cup of tea...that aside...

It is because these statements conflict that I would delve into these matters further then I'd normally do so in the first place. If they both matched up, I wouldn't be concerned, nor trying to understand what is happening and why. There'd be no reason to ponder such.


This is a much more reasonable claim than was made in the OP, and well within the bounds of possibility, perhaps similar to the way in which some women are endowed with extended colour vision. In fact, you may be a tetrachromat yourself, and it's definitely worth getting checked out.

Since you obviously know the subject well, I won't insult you with a wikireference to tetrachromacy, but I'll ask if this explanation had occurred to you.

I agree. I hadn't considered the possibility that I may be a tetrachromat. I know that I see little variation within the green field, though after conducting an online test I found that most people were not seeing much variation within the green.

I cannot say if I have had the experience, perhaps that is what happened? Then again, I am still left wondering how in total darkness even that would happen. I do recall seeing very well under low light conditions, though I never stopped to ask myself if it had anything to do with being a tetrachromat, I assumed it was normal of everyone.

I had my eyes examined recently, though it was just a vision test. I am near sighted and recently acquired glasses so I can make out details at long range.I think another examination would be a good idea. Even more so, one examination as they are now and another after exposing them to the conditions that brought about any change in the first place, I think this would be useful to conduct.

[Jozen-Bo]

This is the color wheel I used to conduct the test:

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9667/colorwheelwithnameszv9.jpg
By jozenbo (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jozenbo) at 2008-02-02

From prior experience with this test, I'd say most people here and elsewhere are going are have the most difficulty seeing the differences within the green range. This is not saying all, because there were people claiming to see the differences in green with ease while having difficulty in other regions, such as red. What it did reveal is that there are differences in our eyes ability to see color from person to person. This, however, does not test our ability to see the chromatic range.

[Ashles]

Pranormal ability that isn't a paranormal ability, to do with vision, pseudo-sicentific explanation, possible known sensory abnormality, planning to do research on self, contradictory statements... it's reminding me of something...
I'm getting a 'V'... an 'f' ... another 'V'...

[Akhenaten]

Pranormal ability that isn't a paranormal ability, to do with vision, pseudo-sicentific explanation, possible known sensory abnormality, planning to do research on self, contradictory statements... it's reminding me of something...
I'm getting a 'V'... an 'f' ... another 'V'...


If only there were some kind of Study™ going on into this sort of thing.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

How about a tester with a manila envelope of cut one-side textured cardboard shapes made and packed by a third party?

No one in the room will know which shape will be pulled from the bag first, and if it's really dark, only the tester will know which shape it is, so you can say what you see, and the tester can put it down in a box, textured side up for 'got it' or down for 'missed it'.

Make a voice recording of the test so you can verify the outcome by going through the box as you play the recording.

Maybe?

[tsig]

If only there were some kind of Study™ going on into this sort of thing.

Well this is such a hard one to test. I mean where oh where can we find a dark room and hot objects?

[chillzero]

Hi

How about a tester with a manila envelope of cut one-side textured cardboard shapes made and packed by a third party?

No one in the room will know which shape will be pulled from the bag first, and if it's really dark, only the tester will know which shape it is, so you can say what you see, and the tester can put it down in a box, textured side up for 'got it' or down for 'missed it'.

Make a voice recording of the test so you can verify the outcome by going through the box as you play the recording.

Maybe?
If the claim is that the vision is related to temperature, there needs to be an extra step here, as just room temperature shapes are not going to be detectable.
I'm not sure though, because there is some inconsistency around the claimed ability.

[Jozen-Bo]

Well this is such a hard one to test. I mean where oh where can we find a dark room and hot objects?

No, I don't think it would be difficult to set up at all. It would take time to prepare, as the changes don't happen over night.

[chillzero]

What changes?

[Jozen-Bo]

If the claim is that the vision is related to temperature, there needs to be an extra step here, as just room temperature shapes are not going to be detectable.
I'm not sure though, because there is some inconsistency around the claimed ability.

I am not saying I know that it was infra-red vision for sure, just that this seems the most plausible answer based on what I saw and what I have gathered. I do recall seeing shapes, and this would be consistent with temperature because the edges of an object tend to have slightly different temperatures then the rest of the body. For example, supposing we have a hot cube and put it in a cold room, the edges and the corners will be the first parts of the cube to cool down, thus having a difference from the rest of the cube in temperature, they would stand out. It is speculation that it is infra-red vision, off course, but it is seems reasonable and fits better then any other explanation I can think of.

If you'd be so kind, could you clarify where exactly those inconsistencies are?

Thanks.

[chillzero]

this would be consistent with temperature because the edges of an object tend to have slightly different temperatures then the rest of the body.
I'm not sure of the truth of this.

For example, supposing we have a hot cube and put it in a cold room, the edges and the corners will be the first parts of the cube to cool down, thus having a difference from the rest of the cube in temperature, they would stand out.
But it's not so true for objects that are already standing - or for human bodies. Such objects radiate.

It is speculation that it is infra-red vision, off course, but it is seems reasonable and fits better then any other explanation I can think of.

If you'd be so kind, could you clarify where exactly those inconsistencies are?

Thanks.
It's probably a sense arising from your own admitted speculations. You said you could see things in a completely dark room, and when asked about various things, what you claim to be able to do or see seems to have changed a little. You need to identify clearly what your claimed ability is, before any further progress can be made on determining how best to test it. You should also refrain from trying to develop scientific sounding explanations for things that you don't fully understand. Just focus on your claim, and how to identify and test it. Don't worry about the science.

For example, as noted above your comment that objects have different temperatures around their visible edges, is flawed, as is (in my understanding) your statement earlier that cats have infra-red vision. Leave aside making up explanations - the 'why' and 'how', and focus on that 'what'.

[Jozen-Bo]

Pranormal ability that isn't a paranormal ability, to do with vision, pseudo-sicentific explanation, possible known sensory abnormality, planning to do research on self, contradictory statements... it's reminding me of something...
I'm getting a 'V'... an 'f' ... another 'V'...

What is pranormal and sicentific? Spelling errors I assume, we all make them sooner or later.

Your not making yourself very clear here, could you clarify?

Yes, I do plan on doing research on myself, but that isn't the main bulk of what I will be doing, I'd give the details, but considering that the main bulk involves gathering intellectual data which could be valuable if it clearly shows results, I prefer not to discuss the details of the main part of the experiment. I'll venture this far with a description, it does not involve using myself as a test subject, there will be documented videos used to secure the evidence (if there is any to find), and should I find evidence it will be extremely difficult for people to dispute objectively (though they could get as subjective about it as they want). That is saying enough.

The testing with the infra-vision is just a side project, one that may or may not get me in on the challenge. That depends on whether JREF decides it is paranormal or not. I don't think it is, but my opinion isn't the one that makes the decision. Whether or not it is paranormal, should I manage to repeat the experiment successfully and prove it using neutral third parties, such a discovery would be worth a lot on its own.

When everything is ready and if I get those results, I am planning on intense testing from neutral third parties to try and debunk my findings, and if their efforts fail then it will only lend credence to my findings instead.

[EHocking]

... I could see my body with ease, though it only appeared reddish to a black background...Given this statement, why complicate a test more than necessary?

Just have another person in the room hold up their hand and ask, "How many fingers?".

Repeat, randomly.

Only 10 trials with a minimum success of 8/10 is required to account for success by random chance to 1:10,000 (source (http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html))

Number of fingers to be held up could be conveyed to tester (in the dark remember) by blocks with (blunt) nails set in them (or large Duplo(tm) blocks with different number of "knobs"). Remembering that the tester will be working blind so will require physical cues.

Randomisation can be done by placing the blocks (or whatever) in a pill dispensing case or similar. Just notch one end so that the tester knows which end to start from.

There are probably more elegant ways of doing it, but "How many fingers?" is about as simple a test as we need here considering the OP's basic claim.

[Professor Yaffle]

Pranormal ability that isn't a paranormal ability, to do with vision, pseudo-sicentific explanation, possible known sensory abnormality, planning to do research on self, contradictory statements... it's reminding me of something...
I'm getting a 'V'... an 'f' ... another 'V'...

Another V? Not another F?

But yes, with every new post I get this feeling more strongly.

[chillzero]

Please let's not have inappropriate derails.....

[Jozen-Bo]

I'm not sure of the truth of this.


But it's not so true for objects that are already standing - or for human bodies. Such objects radiate.

I got A's in physics at the Uni. I know what I am talking about when it comes to the temperature. If your out in the cold your fingers will freeze before your main body. If you have a ball, the outside of it will get cold before the inside of it. If there are edges, they are more vulnerable to changes and fluctuations in the temperature then the other areas. Perhaps you misunderstood me? So or so, this is very basic stuff, you could go and question a physicist if your doubt me though.

The only case I can think of where the edges would be the same as the non-edges is when the room temperature and the object are exactly the same. However, in thermodynamics this doesn't happen so quickly, there is a lot of fluctuations as the varying temperatures settle to a common temperature.

It's probably a sense arising from your own admitted speculations. You said you could see things in a completely dark room, and when asked about various things, what you claim to be able to do or see seems to have changed a little.

That is being consistent, not inconsistent. If my claims changed...we'd have inconsistencies.

You need to identify clearly what your claimed ability is, before any further progress can be made on determining how best to test it. You should also refrain from trying to develop scientific sounding explanations for things that you don't fully understand. Just focus on your claim, and how to identify and test it. Don't worry about the science.

OK. I claim that I was able to develop the ability to see infra-red. I also claim that anyone else not blind can do it. I do not claim that I can do so at this time, but that it needs preparation...to be developed. Thus, the name of this thread "developing infra-red vision" is what it is.

I don't understand why I ought to refrain from using scientific explanations, isn't that what many people do when seeking to explain what they don't fully understand, even scientists themselves...do it all the time. For example, I went to a lecture by Micheal Green, who is a scientist who in the lecture admitted that there are many things that scientists don't understand, and in his own work he was dealing with problems unsolved. This is normal, I'd think.

For example, as noted above your comment that objects have different temperatures around their visible edges, is flawed, as is (in my understanding) your statement earlier that cats have infra-red vision. Leave aside making up explanations - the 'why' and 'how', and focus on that 'what'.

Did I write visible edges, or just edges? If I wrote visible edges then I meant just edges. As if there are invisible edges...lol. It is flawed in that it does not take into account when the temperature is the same over all and settled, though that is so rarely the case I saw no problem with overlooking it. In thermodynamics, we learn temperatures are constantly changing. These differences can be very small, so small that they'd be impossible to detect without the proper equipment.

As to the Cats, I never claimed cats have infra-red vision. If I did (which I doubt) then that is certainly flawed. I am pretty sure I claimed they have ULTRA-VIOLET vision, a fact well known by many. I needn't look very far to settle this, should any dispute it.

[Jozen-Bo]

Given this statement, why complicate a test more than necessary?

Just have another person in the room hold up their hand and ask, "How many fingers?".

Repeat, randomly.

Only 10 trials with a minimum success of 8/10 is required to account for success by random chance to 1:10,000 (source (http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html))

Number of fingers to be held up could be conveyed to tester (in the dark remember) by blocks with (blunt) nails set in them (or large Duplo(tm) blocks with different number of "knobs"). Remembering that the tester will be working blind so will require physical cues.

Randomisation can be done by placing the blocks (or whatever) in a pill dispensing case or similar. Just notch one end so that the tester knows which end to start from.

There are probably more elegant ways of doing it, but "How many fingers?" is about as simple a test as we need here considering the OP's basic claim.


I think this is the best idea I've heard yet, even better then the light bulb test my friend recommended. Thanks!

[arthwollipot]

Just have another person in the room hold up their hand and ask, "How many fingers?".

Repeat, randomly.You'll need a five-sided dice. A luminous five-sided dice, that can be read in the dark.

[Ladewig]

Yes, I do plan on doing research on myself, but that isn't the main bulk of what I will be doing, I'd give the details, but considering that the main bulk involves gathering intellectual data which could be valuable if it clearly shows results, I prefer not to discuss the details of the main part of the experiment. I'll venture this far with a description, it does not involve using myself as a test subject, there will be documented videos used to secure the evidence (if there is any to find), and should I find evidence it will be extremely difficult for people to dispute objectively (though they could get as subjective about it as they want). That is saying enough.


So, in summary, you have amazing powers that no one else has and you are going to test people other than yourself in order to "gather intellectual data" that is so valuable that you cannot even hint as to what it is.

Forgive me for saying so, but your story is getting harder to believe. This message board has seen a parade of people who come here to describe their incredible powers and these posters end up talking about their powers instead of actually performing any objective test. Either contact the JREF and begin testing negotiations or prepare to face posters who will consider you a troll.

[Jozen-Bo]

Can you see infra-red light waves through a blind fold? If so, that should work. As to the dark room, using a camera that can detect ultra-violet light, others could observe what I was doing while I shouldn't be able to see, unless I was a cat, which I am not.

OK. From this statement it is clear that it is not clear what I meant by the statement "unless I was a cat". There was no statement that cats can see infra-red here, it simply did not get clarified. I assumed the reader would also assume that I meant that I'd be able to see too using Ultra-Violet like a cat does, because of the prior statement "using a camera that can detect ULTRA-VIOLET light". I could have worded it better, but at least I didn't state that cats have infra-red vision.

[Jozen-Bo]

So, in summary, you have amazing powers that no one else has and you are going to test people other than yourself in order to "gather intellectual data" that is so valuable that you cannot even hint as to what it is.

You lack the ability to evaluate what I am saying and instead interject your own words and summary. This is very rude. You don't know enough to begin making such assumptions and then making statements as if fact upon them. Your losing your composure, please. I find your behavior rude and I am on the edge of reporting it, and if this doesn't stop quickly I will add you to my ignore list.

Forgive me for saying so, but your story is getting harder to believe. This message board has seen a parade of people who come here to describe their incredible powers and these posters end up talking about their powers instead of actually performing any objective test. Either contact the JREF and begin testing negotiations or prepare to face posters who will consider you a troll.

The tone of your second paragraph is much better then that of your first. Based on it I will make contact, do I need to go to a certain category for this, or is there a link someone could provide?

[Jozen-Bo]

You'll need a five-sided dice. A luminous five-sided dice, that can be read in the dark.

That was...almost a comedy...

A joke I presume. There is no such thing as a five-sided dice, or if there is please post a picture (that is, with five flat surfaces). The luminous part, allowing it to be read in the dark, is rather poor humor, it lacks the subtlety of good humor, though it captures the stupidity aspect of good humor remarkably well.

[chillzero]

I got A's in physics at the Uni. I know what I am talking about when it comes to the temperature. If your out in the cold your fingers will freeze before your main body. If you have a ball, the outside of it will get cold before the inside of it. If there are edges, they are more vulnerable to changes and fluctuations in the temperature then the other areas. Perhaps you misunderstood me? So or so, this is very basic stuff, you could go and question a physicist if your doubt me though.
If you move a thing to an area with a different temperature then yes, the temperature will start to change, starting at the outsides. What you said was:
this would be consistent with temperature because the edges of an object tend to have slightly different temperatures then the rest of the body.
I even quoted it in my response. The edges of an object do not tend to have different temperatures to the rest of the object as a whole - unless the object is being heated or cooled as mentioned. And your comment that you see shapes is where I drew the 'visible edges' part from. How else was that to be interpreted?


That is being consistent, not inconsistent. If my claims changed...we'd have inconsistencies.
And yet that's what I said... that you have slightly altered what you claim to 'see'.


OK. I claim that I was able to develop the ability to see infra-red. I also claim that anyone else not blind can do it. I do not claim that I can do so at this time, but that it needs preparation...to be developed. Thus, the name of this thread "developing infra-red vision" is what it is.
Actually, it took a while to get to that, from a vague description of "infra-vision"... not infra-red.

I don't understand why I ought to refrain from using scientific explanations,
How can you explain what you don't understand? How can you start to describe the mechanisms for an event when you don't even know what the event is? You are participating in vague surmising and speculation, none of which will get you any closer to identifying what the actual ability is, if it exists.

isn't that what many people do when seeking to explain what they don't fully understand, even scientists themselves...do it all the time.
No. They don't try to explain what causes something until they know what that something is.

As to the Cats, I never claimed cats have infra-red vision. If I did (which I doubt) then that is certainly flawed. I am pretty sure I claimed they have ULTRA-VIOLET vision, a fact well known by many. I needn't look very far to settle this, should any dispute it.
I see you found the quote I meant.
Cats have no paranormal ability to see in the dark, so your reasoning is still flawed.

[Ladewig]

I find your behavior rude and I am on the edge of reporting it, and if this doesn't stop quickly I will add you to my ignore list.


If you think that my behavior exceeds the boundaries of this board's rules, then I encourage you to report it without hesitation. I make no apologies for what I said and I stand behind my statement.

[chillzero]

The luminous part, allowing it to be read in the dark, is rather poor humor, it lacks the subtlety of good humor, though it captures the stupidity aspect of good humor remarkably well.

I don't believe that was a joke.

How else are the other participants, who cannot see in the dark, supposed to see the number on the dice that would identify how many fingers they are supposed to hold up, without introducing a light source, that would then presumably disrupt your claimed ability?

Please - everyone - remember that responses here are meant to be civil. Let's not get into bickering so early in a thread.

[chillzero]

You missed a question:
No, I don't think it would be difficult to set up at all. It would take time to prepare, as the changes don't happen over night.

What changes?

[Jozen-Bo]

I don't believe that was a joke.

How else are the other participants, who cannot see in the dark, supposed to see the number on the dice that would identify how many fingers they are supposed to hold up, without introducing a light source, that would then presumably disrupt your claimed ability?

Please - everyone - remember that responses here are meant to be civil. Let's not get into bickering so early in a thread.

My apologies to the poster for my oversight. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I hadn't realized the connection and figured it was a jesting.

I would like to see this thread remain civil as well. Thanks again.

[Jozen-Bo]

If you move a thing to an area with a different temperature then yes, the temperature will start to change, starting at the outsides. What you said was:

I even quoted it in my response. The edges of an object do not tend to have different temperatures to the rest of the object as a whole - unless the object is being heated or cooled as mentioned. And your comment that you see shapes is where I drew the 'visible edges' part from. How else was that to be interpreted?

Ironing out the tiny wrinkles. Well done!

Actually, it took a while to get to that, from a vague description of "infra-vision"... not infra-red.

I was tired when I opened the thread, infra-red is what I meant.

How can you explain what you don't understand? How can you start to describe the mechanisms for an event when you don't even know what the event is? You are participating in vague surmising and speculation, none of which will get you any closer to identifying what the actual ability is, if it exists.

I am not explaining it as if it is certain already, I am trying to construct a hypothesis as to what is happening. This is normal. First a hypothesis, and then some means to test it and formulate a theory out of it.

No. They don't try to explain what causes something until they know what that something is.

However, they are dealing with the unknown and require both hypothesis and speculations as part of the process to reaching a better understanding. After going through many possibilities and rejecting what stands out as least likely, they zero in on what is more likely, according to their senses.

For example, Newton begin by speculating and hypothesizing about what gravity could be before developing a testable theory on it. He tried to explain it to himself, long before knowing "exactly" what it was. He never even got to the exact answer, but came closer then anyone else in his time. His formulas were used for a long time, until Einstein came up with better explanations and formula's proven through testing. Much of what both these two did involved trying to explain what they did not understand and eventually coming to a better understand of it through testing of their slowly developed theories.

I see you found the quote I meant.
Cats have no paranormal ability to see in the dark, so your reasoning is still flawed.

To clarify, I again assumed that the reader would realize that if there was a camera in the room that was picking up ultra-violet radiation then that there would have to be enough of this radiation (or non-visible light) that a cat could also do the same. That is, since the camera is seeing it, and a cat can see it, the cat is most likely seeing it too. It would be totally dark to a human who cannot see ultra-violet however.

[EHocking]

You'll need a five-sided dice. A luminous five-sided dice, that can be read in the dark.How's this then?

Two rooms.
Room 1 : Randomiser/logger with a mobile phone
Room 2 : Test subject (also with mobile) and J-B (without mobile)

J-B stands facing Test Subject.
A board with 5 switches on a table in front of him.

Randomiser has a board with 5 lights in front of him, wired to the switches.

There is a simple intercom between the rooms.

Randomiser (by whatever device) txts Test Subject with number of fingers to hold up.

Randomiser (over intercom) says "Go"
Test Subject holds up fingers.
J-B flips the number of switches he thinks corresponds to the number of fingers.
Randomiser/Logger notes number of lights lit up.
Randomiser (over intercom) says "Stop. Reset switchs"

Repeat.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_266149c2508f0902c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15734)

ETA: For chillzero, you could also have an observer standing next to J-B as a control as to whether a "normally" sighted person could indeed see the Test Subjects arm/fingers

[Professor Yaffle]

For example, Newton begin by speculating and hypothesizing about what gravity could be before developing a testable theory on it. He tried to explain it to himself, before knowing exactly what it was. He never even got to the exact answer, but came closer then anyone else in his time. His formulas were used for a long time, until Einstein came up with better explanations and formula's proven through testing. Much of what both these two did involved trying to explain what they did not understand and eventually coming to a better understand of it through testing of their slowly developed theories.


However, before he did any of this, he first established that, yes, things did indeed fall towards the ground...

[EHocking]

That was...almost a comedy...

A joke I presume. There is no such thing as a five-sided dice, or if there is please post a picture (that is, with five flat surfaces). The luminous part, allowing it to be read in the dark, is rather poor humor, it lacks the subtlety of good humor, though it captures the stupidity aspect of good humor remarkably well.Ahem.

Glow-in-the-dark, 5-sided die (http://www.gamestation.net/GameScience-Green-Glow-Precision-d5/M/B001D6FOHE.htm)

[Jozen-Bo]

If you think that my behavior exceeds the boundaries of this board's rules, then I encourage you to report it without hesitation. I make no apologies for what I said and I stand behind my statement.

Shall I make summaries about you when I know hardly anything? I take this work I am involved in very seriously, I am spending a huge amount of time in it. I would like to see a discussion without insults and without others trying to pry into the privacy of what I don't share. I respect your privacy and will not begin making summaries based of some scanty bits of information you provide. I think your behavior was borderline, though not exceeding. Yes, I did get angry that you'd summarize as you did, it is insulting and not even close to the truth.

But let's just drop this here and now and stay focused. Don't bother to make a summary of me nor even respond to this reply. If you stay focused and don't start jumping to conclusions and making false accusations, then the conversation will be more fruitful then if otherwise.

[Jozen-Bo]

Ahem.

Glow-in-the-dark, 5-sided die (http://www.gamestation.net/GameScience-Green-Glow-d5/M/B001D4OSFK.htm)

The sides are not all equal, thus neither are the chances of it landing on the same side. Then again, I forgot, was it for generating random numbers or not? If not, then it would do the trick.

[EHocking]

What of my "protocol" above. I guestimate that the required bits would total less than $40 from radio shack (ignoring the mobile phones) if you were to build the light/switch panels yourself.

[Professor Yaffle]

The sides are not all equal, thus neither are the chances of it landing on the same side. Then again, I forgot, was it for generating random numbers or not? If not, then it would do the trick.

http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=10221

[Jozen-Bo]

You missed a question:

The question that you reminded me of "what changes". There are two ways to answer this, the long one is based upon a theory I have been slowly putting together and it would take a long time to explain.

The short one answer is, the changes the EYE's undergo when exposed by the methods used to produce such changes. Basically saying, I suspect that the physiological structure that composes the eyeballs on down to the cells undergoes a change, it is not the same as it was normally before and this explains best that I know, why the eyes actually begin to see differently in the first place, why they'd see things they could see before.

It's not a super special power of mine, it is a developed ability after conditions are met. This is the change I talk of.

[Jozen-Bo]

http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=10221

Trippy...

I stand corrected.

[Jozen-Bo]

What of my "protocol" above. I guestimate that the required bits would total less than $40 from radio shack (ignoring the mobile phones) if you were to build the light/switch panels yourself.

Personally I like it and am willing to work with it, but it is JREF that has to decide the protocols, not me...I am relieved from that task. That the price is low makes it even better, why spend more then you have to?

[alfaniner]

This is the color wheel I used to conduct the test:


Can I ask where you got that image? I think it would be useful for another project I am doing, and I'm interested in how the numbers were generated.

[EHocking]

Personally I like it and am willing to work with it, but it is JREF that has to decide the protocols, not me...I am relieved from that task. That the price is low makes it even better, why spend more then you have to?

I suggest you read the MDC rules and FAQ. (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html) Both you and JREF determine a protocol that both sides agree upon.

I'd be more than happy to attempt a draft based on the set up I've suggested.

[Akhenaten]

That was...almost a comedy...

A joke I presume. There is no such thing as a five-sided dice, or if there is please post a picture (that is, with five flat surfaces). The luminous part, allowing it to be read in the dark, is rather poor humor, it lacks the subtlety of good humor, though it captures the stupidity aspect of good humor remarkably well.



You'll have to take my word for the luminous part. I don't know how to draw that.



http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Die.jpg


ETA: Curses. I see I haven't invented anything after all. I feel so inadequate.

[Jozen-Bo]

Can I ask where you got that image? I think it would be useful for another project I am doing, and I'm interested in how the numbers were generated.

I made it myself. The colors have angular degrees attributed to them as I learned from studying so many chromaticity and color wheels. They where generated using proportions of red-green-blue that change at regular units. This link provides a good deal of useful information about such:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color

I went through many other sites, but I don't have them listed so this provides the quickest answer, plus, the Wick provided much aid when I generated that wheel. After scrutinizing all the colors there I found that certain angles have no name, so I searched all over the net for those names and never found any. Finally, I gave them names of my own. If you follow that link or look around you'll find that the wheel is legitimate, and if you take samples using a drawing program you'll find that both the angles and the proportions are correct.

You can certainly use that wheel as you like, I've put it on the net as an open source, so anyone can copy the image into their computer and use it however they'd like. I can tell you this in advance, that what you see on the screen is not the same as what a printer will print. Pigmentations can do a lot to change the final outcome of such a print-out. Still, if you can find use for it than I am happy to have provided it. Your welcome to it.

[Jozen-Bo]

I suggest you read the MDC rules and FAQ. (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html) Both you and JREF determine a protocol that both sides agree upon.

I'd be more than happy to attempt a draft based on the set up I've suggested.

This I didn't know. Thanks for the link! Considering how simple and straight-forward your idea is, I happily accept your offer and we can forward the protocol to JREF when it's ready.

[Ladewig]

Yes, I did get angry that you'd summarize as you did, it is insulting and not even close to the truth.

If it was not accurate, then please indicate which parts were false.

A million dollars is waiting for you but despite your "spending a huge amount of time on it" you can't be bothered to contact the JREF. I see no reason not to add your name to the long list of people who talk about their power but never provide evidence and never agree to objective testing.

As for being insulting, I will be the first person to apologize to you as soon as you provide conclusive evidence of your alleged power. To get me to shut up, all you have to do is put up the evidence.

[chillzero]

However, before he did any of this, he first established that, yes, things did indeed fall towards the ground...
Indeed. Thank you.

The question that you reminded me of "what changes". There are two ways to answer this, the long one is based upon a theory I have been slowly putting together and it would take a long time to explain.

The short one answer is, the changes the EYE's undergo when exposed by the methods used to produce such changes. Basically saying, I suspect that the physiological structure that composes the eyeballs on down to the cells undergoes a change, it is not the same as it was normally before and this explains best that I know, why the eyes actually begin to see differently in the first place, why they'd see things they could see before.
Can you clarify any of this? I can't follow it. Are you saying you need to wait for changes to take place at a cellular level?

It's not a super special power of mine, it is a developed ability after conditions are met. This is the change I talk of.
What ability, and what conditions?
If you are at a place where you can identify what conditions need to be in place for your claimed ability to manifest, then some answers should be easy to supply. What conditions are necessary, and what happens when they occur?

[arthwollipot]

Wow. My comment was, indeed, made in jest. But out of the mouths of fools...

[SphereGuy]

If I may interject here. First of all, you can't use glow in the dark dice or lights in a test that requires complete darkness, however faint it is it will still send light into the room.

When I was in the AF I was locked in a vault that was in an underground room, then they turned the lights off. Yes, it was complete and utter darkness. After a while I swear I could see my hands and the outline of the room. But a few tests and walking into walls later verified it was just my imagination. I think my brain was trying so hard to get a signal from my eyes that it "made up" what it thought it should be seeing based on the feelings of where my hands were and where I thought the walls were. This is not unprecidented and many optical illusions work this way. Anyway, the second time I was locked in I was wearing a watch with a very useless luminous dial. It just had 4 dots for 12, 3, 6, and 9 and some slight coloring on the hands. I had barely even noticed it before but in that utter darkness it was like flashlight. After a while I could read by it.

From experience, I think if tests are done, nothing luminous should be allowed in the room.

[Akhenaten]

This is the color wheel I used to conduct the test:

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9667/colorwheelwithnameszv9.jpg

By jozenbo (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jozenbo) at 2008-02-02




Can I ask where you got that image? I think it would be useful for another project I am doing, and I'm interested in how the numbers were generated.


Build it yourself at home!

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Colourchart.jpg

[EHocking]

If I may interject here. First of all, you can't use glow in the dark dice or lights in a test that requires complete darkness, however faint it is it will still send light into the room.

When I was in the AF I was locked in a vault that was in an underground room, then they turned the lights off. Yes, it was complete and utter darkness. After a while I swear I could see my hands and the outline of the room. But a few tests and walking into walls later verified it was just my imagination. I think my brain was trying so hard to get a signal from my eyes that it "made up" what it thought it should be seeing based on the feelings of where my hands were and where I thought the walls were. This is not unprecidented and many optical illusions work this way. Anyway, the second time I was locked in I was wearing a watch with a very useless luminous dial. It just had 4 dots for 12, 3, 6, and 9 and some slight coloring on the hands. I had barely even noticed it before but in that utter darkness it was like flashlight. After a while I could read by it.

From experience, I think if tests are done, nothing luminous should be allowed in the room.The test set up I am proposing exludes the dice (that was a bit of a joke by arthwollipot).

The only light will be those of the video cameras used to monitor the test, these would be masked so as not to add any light to help the claimant.

Similarly, the mobile phone display that the Test Subject will have (not the claimant) can be masked if it would distract the claimant or add useful light.

[Jozen-Bo]

If it was not accurate, then please indicate which parts were false.

Suffice it as enough to say that the summary was not accurate. We needn't carry on with it.

A million dollars is waiting for you but despite your "spending a huge amount of time on it" you can't be bothered to contact the JREF. I see no reason not to add your name to the long list of people who talk about their power but never provide evidence and never agree to objective testing.

But I can be bothered to contact JREF, if you go back in this thread you'll find that I am requesting a direction. If no one will provide it, then I will find it myself.

As for being insulting, I will be the first person to apologize to you as soon as you provide conclusive evidence of your alleged power. To get me to shut up, all you have to do is put up the evidence.

You needn't shut up, simply don't make wild assumptions. Some of the things you've said thus far I see value in. I am not opposed to conversation, just being labeled falsely.

[Jozen-Bo]

Can you clarify any of this? I can't follow it. Are you saying you need to wait for changes to take place at a cellular level?

Correct, given that my hypothesis is right.

What ability, and what conditions?
If you are at a place where you can identify what conditions need to be in place for your claimed ability to manifest, then some answers should be easy to supply. What conditions are necessary, and what happens when they occur?

The ability to see infra-red, isn't this obvious by now?

No, I haven't yet discussed the conditions. I will soon though, because they are connected. I think, however, even though I may present these conditions here soon, I will begin a new thread focusing more on what they are to prevent digressing this thread away from the topic of developing infra-red vision. I will begin to prepare this as soon as I am finished following up on this thread..

[EHocking]

...But I can be bothered to contact JREF, if you go back in this thread you'll find that I am requesting a direction. If no one will provide it, then I will find it myself...
?? !! ??

Originally Posted by EHocking http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4531352#post4531352)
I suggest you read the MDC rules and FAQ. (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html) Both you and JREF determine a protocol that both sides agree upon.

I'd be more than happy to attempt a draft based on the set up I've suggested.

This I didn't know. Thanks for the link! Considering how simple and straight-forward your idea is, I happily accept your offer and we can forward the protocol to JREF when it's ready. ETA: I suggest you try your own tests before you bother with the MDC application though.

[Jozen-Bo]

Wow. My comment was, indeed, made in jest. But out of the mouths of fools...

Lol...

Then my intuition was correct.

[Jozen-Bo]

?? !! ??

Point taking. I'm guessing that link is the direction I am looking for.


OK. This may take a while, as I said before it needs to be developed. But I will begin putting aside roughly 20 minutes a day and perform the testing after a few months (I don't think it will happen any sooner...but I could be mistaken).

[Ernie M]

There is no clear cut off point however between which wavelengths are visible and which aren't. If the infrared is bright enough, it is possible to see if the "visible light" is blocked. Link (http://amasci.com/amateur/irgoggl.html) Video Link (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/746423/infrared_goggle_hack_for_under_10/).

It isn't very likely that inside a building there would be enough infrared light for a normal person to see, unless there are some bright infrared lamps. But it would not be entirely out of the question that someone had a mutation that allows him/her to have eyes much more sensitive to infrared.

NO "ABSOLUTE" WAVELENGTH, BUT- THERE IS A "TYPICAL" RANGE
I agree there is no clear cut off point from where visible light becomes infrared, because there are natural differences from one person to the next, because our eyes are not made to exacting tolerances. But for the most part, there is a commonly agreed/acceptable "range," that is why I provided the wavelengths I did.

For example, not everyone's eyes see visible light up to say, 700 nm, then at precisely 700.00000000001 nm, they can't see the light because it's now infrared. The human body is not built to exacting specifications, there are differences.

DANGER IF YOU MAKE THOSE "INFRARED GOGGLES"
Most theatrical gels are made of a combination of plastics and dyes, the plastics used may usually be a blend of polycarbonate and polyester.

Polycarbonate is a plastic which has inherent ultraviolet and infrared filtering qualities, which block harmful rays from getting to the eyes. So that part is okay. However, the polyester can let through the damaging ultraviolet and infrared rays. Your eyes will not be adequately protected from harmful rays if you use just theatrical gels to make a quasi-infrared goggle from inexpensive theatrical gels.

You can go blind from ultraviolet and infrared.

WHAT THE COLORED THEATRICAL GELS ARE ACTUALLY DOING
The colored gels are blocking particular wavelengths of visible light to produce changes in color which I believe are falsely attributed as being "infrared" colors. Again, the colored gels are altering "visible" light, but are not rendering the unseen (infrared wavelengths) into the seen (visible spectrum.)

[Jozen-Bo]

If I may interject here. First of all, you can't use glow in the dark dice or lights in a test that requires complete darkness, however faint it is it will still send light into the room.

When I was in the AF I was locked in a vault that was in an underground room, then they turned the lights off. Yes, it was complete and utter darkness. After a while I swear I could see my hands and the outline of the room. But a few tests and walking into walls later verified it was just my imagination. I think my brain was trying so hard to get a signal from my eyes that it "made up" what it thought it should be seeing based on the feelings of where my hands were and where I thought the walls were. This is not unprecidented and many optical illusions work this way. Anyway, the second time I was locked in I was wearing a watch with a very useless luminous dial. It just had 4 dots for 12, 3, 6, and 9 and some slight coloring on the hands. I had barely even noticed it before but in that utter darkness it was like flashlight. After a while I could read by it.

From experience, I think if tests are done, nothing luminous should be allowed in the room.

I agree.

[EHocking]

Point taking. I'm guessing that link is the direction I am looking for.


OK. This may take a while, as I said before it needs to be developed. But I will begin putting aside roughly 20 minutes a day and perform the testing after a few months (I don't think it will happen any sooner...but I could be mistaken).What's to develop. In your OP you claimed this, "I have been conducting experimentation and at one time found myself seeing with infra-vision in total darkness. ".

Either you can do it as you stated or you can't.
The simple protocol I suggested can test that.

US$1 million would go a long way in R&D...

[Jozen-Bo]

Build it yourself at home!

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Colourchart.jpg

You sampled it? The values must have changed slightly from your samplings, because, for example, red has a value of 255 and not 254. These things do happen, but your numbers are close enough that only those with the sharpest vision would be able to detect any difference. I recall myself sampling colors from a transfered image to find that somehow the values changed, still I find it interesting that some off the values are of by...1. If it says 254, it means 255; if it says 63, it means 64...etc.

Correction...some of the values are off by as much as 2 or 3...

[Jozen-Bo]

What's to develop. In your OP you claimed this, "I have been conducting experimentation and at one time found myself seeing with infra-vision in total darkness. ".

Either you can do it as you stated or you can't.
The simple protocol I suggested can test that.

US$1 million would go a long way in R&D...


I can't do it right now at this moment. I believe I can develop it again, given time. The protocol you suggest is simple, I like it. I will resume the activities that lead to this change and see if I can reproduce this ability. Sorry about the wait.:o

By the way, what does R&D stand for?

[Jozen-Bo]

Here is the method I used to produce the conditions that lead to my eyes readjustment:

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/5089/cellphonepicture7kj1.jpg
By jozenbo (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jozenbo) at 2008-02-26

This is an image of a time map I developed, basically a calendar, though a lot bigger and with its graph configured into an attractor. The map in this picture is 3-foot in diameter. It is placed on a wheel and with one thrust from my arms it spins as long as 20 minutes. This is another system which produces different results and is much more complicated then the system I used to gain infra-red vision, so I will now provide a picture of that system:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/3861/crownchakrano9.jpg
By jozenbo (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jozenbo) at 2008-02-12

This is the pattern used to acquire the vision I speak of. It is simply black and white, given a maximum and minimum chromatic value. The checkers have been drawn into a blank time map, thereby converting it into a graph for developing attractor patterns. I did not have the full sized wheel at the time I preformed this experiment, instead I used a smaller map that was placed on a bicycle wheel.

The exercise for the eyes involves observing this pattern in spin roughly 20 minutes a day and the effects do not happen over night. I won't go into the details as to what I think is happening, though it does involve the way this light-wave configuration enters the eyes and reaches the photo-receptor cells. This covers the basics of the process I think. If there anything remains unclear please feel free to ask for further clarification.

[Akhenaten]

You sampled it? The values must have changed slightly from your samplings, because, for example, red has a value of 255 and not 254. These things do happen, but your numbers are close enough that only those with the sharpest vision would be able to detect any difference. I recall myself sampling colors from a transfered image to find that somehow the values changed, still I find it interesting that some off the values are of by...1. If it says 254, it means 255; if it says 63, it means 64...etc.

Correction...some of the values are off by as much as 2 or 3...


Yeah, I could see the values you would probably have used, but I didn't correct them in my table in case there was a reason unknown to me for the slight variations. I suspect they occur because of jpeg compression.

As an aside, I can discern all the colours very well, but as you point out, the greens are the hardest to differentiate.

I like your choice of colour names, by the way.

[Akhenaten]

Here is the method I used to produce the conditions that lead to my eyes readjustment:

<snip for brevity only>




Well, I'm intrigued. I sincerely look forward to seeing how this pans out.


R&D means Research and Development which is what you're doing, more or less :)

[Jeff Corey]

Like Benham's Top. http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/col_benham/index.html

[Miss_Kitt]

Jozen-Bo -- The time you saw your own body, was anyone else with you?

I am curious because it would certainly not be unique to you if your brain "created" imagery of your body parts based upon your proprioception of where they were/what they were doing. If, however, you could see details of someone else's body movements, that would be different.

Also, I am unclear from the various back-and-forth comments, but did you say you could, or could not, read in the condition of heavy darkness?


If your perception is temperature-based, then another handy testing method might involve having a styrofoam ice chest with a slot cut in its side. A series of stencil-type numerals--that is, ones that have the digit cut out, leaving a hole (or several holes) in the shape of the number--could be selected and placed in the slot. The order of the digits could be determined by the throw of a die, to make them random. You would then be able to read the number based upon the digits emitting air that is colder than the room temperature...

The ice chest is filled with ice or icy containers (frozen bottles of water are good for this) so that the interior is cold. The chest is covered with a blanket (or other light and heat insulator) and is moved into the test room. Test subject enters the room and waits until his eyes adjust for the ambient light exposure from moving to the room. Subject is seated, say, 12 feet away from the chest's location. The test assistant, upon receiving the signal, uncovers the face of the chest that contains the slot with its cut-outs (this face is of course pointed toward the subject). Subject then reads the digits aloud--this is recorded--and the chest is re-covered to prevent tampering. Mild lighting is brought into the room, and the digits given by the subject are compared to the actual digits in the slot/wall.

An additional control could be to have the numbers placed in the slot randomly selected by a third party, who notes the digits/blanks and their order, sets up the stencils, and covers the chest before it is carried into the test room by assistant. This means that, without moving the blanket, the assistant cannot know what the numerals are.


This is just a quick pre-test that could be used to easily determine if temperature is in fact what is being seen, and if the subject can see complex shapes based upon temperature differences. If this test is failed, then the subject would need to do additional investigations to determine what wavelengths of the EM spectrum are being perceived. It has the advantages of being very inexpensive to set up and perform; using only readily-available materials; and testing several aspects of the Ability at once.

For example, it may be that you can detect that there is something cold over there, but not actually read the numerals; or, you can detect aspects of the shape, but imprecisely -- "1" being read as "7" and "6" as "8". The possible inclusion of "blank" cardboard in some slots will also offer some ability to separate guessing from seeing.

Just an idea, but it's valuable to determine what it is you can or can't do before working out a big, conplex protocol about it. To do so, you need to have a clear certainty of what you can or can't do. The Million Dollar Challenge will require you to do some preliminary demonstrations before academics and get some public attention before going into preliminary testing anyway, so this is a good first step.

Feel free to use this if it strikes you as sensible, I would be happy to help you with working out the details on how digit selection should work, etc.

Good luck on your research, Miss Kitt

PS It might be worthwhile to look at actually using commercial stencils--or at least, using them to guide cutting shapes in thicker cardboard--because those have been designed to present digits in a typeface that makes it difficult to confuse them.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jozen-Bo,
In a reply to your first post on this thread, #1 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4529439&postcount=1), before I have read any of the continuing discussions here,

It is nice that you come here to discuss with us your interest in taking part in the JREF million dollar challenge. I find it interesting to learn about the claims that arise here, and how the claimants (as yourself) are reasoning around their supposed paranormal experience and how they wish to demonstrate and verify it to the skeptical and scientific community. So thank you for sharing that.

So it seems that this deals with an unusual skill that you have trained yourself for. My first question is, how have you ensured that your testing environment was in total darkness? Do you have access to such an environment that is entirely without a lightsource? To see in total darkness is very interesting to me, I am studying optics and am very fascinated by most things dealing with light and human sensory perception. If the condition of total darkness is met within your testing procedures, I am definitely very interested in your claim.

And that is perfectly alright by me that you would suspect your experience to be paranormal, since you claim to have experienced something which you can not explain. That is when further investigation is necessary in order to seek scientific explanations for what you experience. And, keeping in mind of course, that what we find out, if we reach a conclusion in your investigation of your experience, it might end up falling within the realm of normal, and not paranormal after all. Either way, I am quite intrigued by your claim.

The fact that you say none of your experiences can be controlled and occur unpredictably should not discourage an investigation or test. Since why not wait around in the room until something does occur?

One way perhaps to try to approach proof that you can see energy radiating out of someone's brain, is, can you detect the whereabouts of persons in a room that is totally without light, if other means of detection are disabled? Also, can you distinguish a different type of energy radiating from different individuals, then perhaps you could indicate this by showing on a test that you could distinguish different individuals not only by their location but by identifying the individuals as well?

How do you perceive this energy radiating out of someone's brain? Do you see it in your mind only, or in the room itself? Is it colorful, or is it a sense of feeling? Please describe the experience for us.

And whether you caused it or not should not matter. A paranormal experience should be paranormal whether it is a skill you cause at will or is a skill you simply possess and do not control over when it happens. I definitely encourage you to continue investigating your interesting experience.

How does psychology relate to your experience? Just curious.

And what specificly do you define as the "paranormal experiences" in your claimed experience? Before we can label whether it is paranormal or not, would you care to further describe what the experience is in greater detail? And then I am sure there is plenty of research data already available relating to what humans may perceive in a dark room that could answer your question. Could be it is a normal phenomenon. Have you had other control persons attempt to experience what you have experienced in order to try to determine whether you in fact do possess a skill that is out of the ordinary?

Moving your consciousness into a parallel universe? How on earth would you prove that? What kind of physical scientific evidence could you possibly bring about to prove that your consciousness did in fact visit a parallel universe? Could you perhaps make some observations in that parallel universe such as accessing remote viewing skills, information that could then be brought back to our universe and be verified. What do you think? Science is very limited today, it can not prove everything that does exist or everything that does occur. Even if you did visit a parallel universe it might not be possible to prove that. I don't know.

You seem to be suggesting several interesting experiences of yours, but I personally feel that the infra-vision might be the better to focus on rather than access to a parallel universe. Easier to test, and also I think easier for you to experience, am I right?

Given that the human development of infrared-vision would not already be a known concept, I think you are right that if you have designed a method for developing this ability in humans you would definitely bring about a lot of money for yourself. Many people would love to read the books, to take the courses and to learn this skill, and lots of scientific research would love for your assistance. (Alright Skeptics, don't tell me not to "encourage the woo" or anything like that. I encourage rational but objective thinking and hopefully this person can reach a true and final conclusion about their experience.)

Speaking from the perspective of a science student, I'd like to ask you what science background you have? I would highly encourage you to engage other scientists in your research of this experience if you can show that there is something of interest in your experience, because they may have plenty of expertise that would be valuable. Although I do encourage you regardless of your own science background to be scientifically interested in investigating your experience.

I think you should definitely take the time to look into your experience. I think the very first thing to start with, is reading about human perception in darkness and whether this experience of infrared vision has already been accounted for in science. Many "new discoveries" have already been found by someone else. Someone might re-invent the telephone only to find out that someone else beat them to it. So do a background check first, I think.

I think your idea is very interesting and I encourage you to continue with investigating your experience, and thank you for sharing it here with us. If indeed you have developed a paranormal ability for yourself I will be here helping you toward the million dollar challenge, if that is where you see yourself headed.

I am a paranormal claimant myself, Vision From Feeling Thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128149), www.visionfromfeeling.com (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com), and my claim is somewhat similar to yours. I am a science student of chemistry and optical physics and am very interested in following your investigation. Although I experience something possibly paranormal myself, I do intend to be a Skeptic as well, and please do not consider me a competitor in this endeavour, I am supporting you and let's find out what your experience is, whether it turns out to be paranormal, or normal.

[Ashles]

And she still doesn't have the time to fax the study notes to UncaYimmy? :rolleyes:

[Sparhawk]

I can't see how we can have any video recording equipment in the dark room, as it would need a light source to record from (ignoring the fact of the lights on the camera). An IR light source is no appropriate, as this may be a condition we are testing for.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jozen-Bo,
I could see my body with ease, though it only appeared reddish to a black background.
So everything which you see in total darkness, that you call infra-vision (and that I would probably call infrared-vision), you see in the color red? Personally I can often see myself in a totally dark room but with a bright white color. Not that I'm suggesting a paranormal claim. But other people have also seen a bright white light around me so maybe it's just me. ;)

(...) if I get those results. Then again, I might not reveal any of it, because I am aware of how valuable Intellectual Data is when it holds up on its own.Ha ha. Just like me. I think those who think they have some exciting brand new breakthrough in their hands can all relate to what you just said, whereas skeptics and scientists in general might be opposed to that and encourage sharing. Personally I think that it is better to be careful, so don't share anything that might be valuable to you in the end, just in case. There are thieves out there.

As to your comparison and advice...I find your composure slightly rude and bitter. That does not make me feel like complying. Try using some manners, please. Why don't you...stop wasting your time telling others what to do and comparing them when you know nothing about them? If someone wants to interact, here, in these forums, on this topic, what business is it of yours to interfere?

Smells like bias and inconsideration on your behalf... (This was not said to VisionFromFeeling) Let me give you some advice from a fellow paranormal claimant who's been here on the JREF Forums for a few months now. Some of the Skeptics here can come across as very rude and negative, but the way I deal with it is try to extract the meaning from what they say and disregard how it was said. Some of them don't know how to talk polite, but they really are valuable as Skeptics.

At this moment I don't have the ability. If my speculation is correct, then I can develop this ability by repeating what I did last time when it was triggered. Unlike many of the other observations, this one is the most promising of which can be reproduced and controlled. My estimates is that it would take about 6 months to fully pin...that is, to develop to such an extent that I have no problem nor concern if tested. Keep practicing then and let us know if your skill develops to an extent where you feel comfortable that the skill is reliable enough to perform on a test.

Can you see infra-red light waves through a blind fold? If so, that should work. As to the dark room, using a camera that can detect ultra-violet light, others could observe what I was doing while I shouldn't be able to see, unless I was a cat, which I am not. Do infrared waves travel through such a material in order to reach the eye? Do you think you are seeing the infrared radiation with your eyes, and that your talent is due to the development of the eyes and optical information processing in the brain, or could it be that you are feeling the infrared radiation, since infrared radiation is the very same thing as heat. Could it be that you have developed a skill in feeling the location, the extent, and the patterns of heat waves? What do you think.

I am not sure, to be honest. Considering how well I saw, I know I could make out the shape of the paper. I think my chances would go up if the numbers where engraved or grooved, rather then written, because I recall seeing edges very clearly. If a chemical was used as ink that produced heat but not visible light, that would likely work too. I could, for example, put a key in the key hole without missing, over and over again. However this poses a problem, since the detection of heat is not a paranormal ability at all. All human beings are equipped with the sensory system of detecting heat. Your performance would have to be compared with other control persons to determine whether your heat detection skill - which is what the infra-vision seems to be - is something that is beyond what most of us can acchieve. Do you have friends available who can try to do what you do to compare the results?

What has been recommended by a friend is what he called the light bulb test. Turn a light off after having it on for a few minutes. It will still be hot. Putting this on a board with 20 other light bulbs, which weren't on, and then quickly moving this board into the dark room, I should be able to say which light was on. I think that is how he described it...However, if I do get tested then I figure let JREF put together the test. I would personally probably not accept such a test procedure for a paranormal claim, since all of us can detect heat.

I've had many experiences and made many observations, though I find it difficult to figure out how to make them evident to others. The strongest case I can think about was seeing in the dark. I'm not sure yet if that could be considered an ability that is special to myself or one that could be developed by anyone repeating the method. I suspect that latter. To make your skill evident to others you would need to produce some kind of physical evidence. Such as to use your ability of perceiving infrared to detect physical objects in your surroundings in cases where these should not be detectable by human beings.

I find it very interesting that you say that you are actually using your eyes to detect infrared waves, when in fact all across the body there are receptors for infrared waves embedded in the skin. How do you experience that your eyes detect the infrared? Do you feel your eyes working when you experience infra-vision? Does your infrared perception cease when you close your eyes? I am very interested.

The results where basically that I could navigate through geometric puzzles faster then any kid the professional tester ever witnessed, after 20 years in the field. He said I possess a mind that was less then 1 in a million. But, that isn't a super power is it? Would that relate to your infrared vision in any way?

Providing a way to prove I am perceiving or have perceived many things that do not fall under the category of normal IS frustrating. But again, these where developed, I wasn't born with them. Thus, I do not believe that they are super powers.I think a paranormal ability would be defined as such whether one was born with it or developed it.

Akhenaten,
an assistant with an iron bar, suitable for swinging wildly in the dark.

a darkened, room-sized space

yourself Sounds dangerous! ;)

Ashles,
Pranormal ability that isn't a paranormal ability, to do with vision, pseudo-sicentific explanation, possible known sensory abnormality, planning to do research on self, contradictory statements... it's reminding me of something...
I'm getting a 'V'... an 'f' ... another 'V'... Hey!

Akhenaten,
If only there were some kind of Study™ going on into this sort of thing. Hey!

[VisionFromFeeling]

Infra-VisionTM

[Jeff Corey]

JB,
Pay close attention to VFF's advice. If you follow it, you may rest assured that your claim will never be disproven.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jozen-Bo,
I am not saying I know that it was infra-red vision for sure, just that this seems the most plausible answer based on what I saw and what I have gathered. I do recall seeing shapes, and this would be consistent with temperature because the edges of an object tend to have slightly different temperatures then the rest of the body. For example, supposing we have a hot cube and put it in a cold room, the edges and the corners will be the first parts of the cube to cool down, thus having a difference from the rest of the cube in temperature, they would stand out. It is speculation that it is infra-red vision, off course, but it is seems reasonable and fits better then any other explanation I can think of.How about you feel the heat patterns and your mind translates it into vision? Some form of synesthetic linkage? But don't steal my VisionFromFeelingTM, please. I'm already doing that.

Yes, I do plan on doing research on myself, but that isn't the main bulk of what I will be doing, I'd give the details, but considering that the main bulk involves gathering intellectual data which could be valuable if it clearly shows results, I prefer not to discuss the details of the main part of the experiment. I'll venture this far with a description, it does not involve using myself as a test subject, there will be documented videos used to secure the evidence (if there is any to find), and should I find evidence it will be extremely difficult for people to dispute objectively (though they could get as subjective about it as they want). That is saying enough.Although many will find what you said offensive, I encourage it. I have my secrets too, you know. ;) Do be careful, but at the same time, eventually, do allow collaboration with others at which you will have to confide some of your data with others. It becomes inevitable at a later stage of your investigation. What you can do then is to carefully document, date and store your data written and signed by you and verified by co-signers so that you can be verified as the source of that data at that time. That is how scientists record their personal data when it is being shared with collaborators. That way you can let go of some of that worry.

When everything is ready and if I get those results, I am planning on intense testing from neutral third parties to try and debunk my findings, and if their efforts fail then it will only lend credence to my findings instead. Sounds like the StudyTM to me. This guy sounds so much like me it is... almost paranormal.

I don't understand why I ought to refrain from using scientific explanations, isn't that what many people do when seeking to explain what they don't fully understand, even scientists themselves...do it all the time. I think the Skeptics are being careful to ensure that you not make scientific conclusions regarding your claim since we are not at that stage yet. Scientific investigation and hypotheses should however be allowed.

After going through many possibilities and rejecting what stands out as least likely, they zero in on what is more likely, according to their senses. Not if you are applying Occam's razor.

Shall I make summaries about you when I know hardly anything? I take this work I am involved in very seriously, I am spending a huge amount of time in it. I would like to see a discussion without insults and without others trying to pry into the privacy of what I don't share. I respect your privacy and will not begin making summaries based of some scanty bits of information you provide. I think your behavior was borderline, though not exceeding. Yes, I did get angry that you'd summarize as you did, it is insulting and not even close to the truth.

But let's just drop this here and now and stay focused. Don't bother to make a summary of me nor even respond to this reply. If you stay focused and don't start jumping to conclusions and making false accusations, then the conversation will be more fruitful then if otherwise. This thread and claimant is starting to sound so much like me and my thread that it is almost scary!

The short one answer is, the changes the EYE's undergo when exposed by the methods used to produce such changes. Basically saying, I suspect that the physiological structure that composes the eyeballs on down to the cells undergoes a change, it is not the same as it was normally before and this explains best that I know, why the eyes actually begin to see differently in the first place, why they'd see things they could see before.

It's not a super special power of mine, it is a developed ability after conditions are met. This is the change I talk of. I am very interested in your theory about the physiological changes in the eye tissue. Oh well.

A million dollars is waiting for you but despite your "spending a huge amount of time on it" you can't be bothered to contact the JREF. I see no reason not to add your name to the long list of people who talk about their power but never provide evidence and never agree to objective testing.If Jozen-Bo replies to this with "Impatience", then I've found a long-lost twin in the world of paranormal! :)

[Jeff Corey]

...This thread and claimant is starting to sound so much like me and my thread that it is almost scary!

I am very interested in your theory about the physiological changes in the eye tissue. Oh well.

If Jozen-Bo replies to this with "Impatience", then I've found a long-lost twin in the world of paranormal! :)

I'm sure there are thousands, nay - hundreds of thousands, out there who are just like you.

[MattusMaximus]

Great, so now we see VFF giving "advice" to Jozen-Bo. Talk about the blind leading the blind :rolleyes:

[dlorde]

I've only skipped through this thread after the first few messages, but it occurs to me that infra-red radiation can be sensed by the skin. I'm not say that this is how the claimed visual effect is mediated, although it may be possible (radiant heat perception by the skin giving rise to a visual sensation as a kind of synaesthesia - though perhaps it would be less precise than the claim made here). However, in a well-controlled experiment, you would surely need some means of eliminating this possibility. The claim seems to be that the eyes are the detectors, so you'd have to arrange it so that only the eyes are exposed to the source.

[VisionFromFeeling]

I'm starting to detect serious complications with testing for this particular claim. How do we ensure that the heat patterns are not detected by the heat receptors in the skin and not the eyes? How would we disable this ordinary heat sensing system of the skin? A crucial component of testing this claim must be that this claimant must perform better than several control persons as the beginnings to ensure that ordinary heat detection is not used intentionally or unintentionally by the claimant to produce the claimed experience of infrared-vision through eyesight.

[Jeff Corey]

No. Just as some people have better vision. hearing or gustation than others, comparing this person to "several control persons" is silly.
As I suggested on another thread, you need to take some courses in human sensation and perception that include signal detection procedures.

[EHocking]

I can't see how we can have any video recording equipment in the dark room, as it would need a light source to record from (ignoring the fact of the lights on the camera). An IR light source is no appropriate, as this may be a condition we are testing for.I am fully with you on this. That's why I proposed a number of video recording devices to cover just what your qualms about this are.

This is where the expense may come in on testing this.

My thoughts.
A "regular" video camera works in the region of about 1 lux (probably better these days). I have been surprised with some of the low light video I have shot where my eyes couldn't discern the detail that the subsequent video shows.

so. Tools to contemplate to investigate the claim.

"regular" vidcam to record "visible" light i.e. 1 lux or so
lowlight/starcam vidcam - where the video receptor is better than eyesight, but reliant on a light source not necessarily discernable by "regular" eyesight
IR - well, true infra-red would be great, but how feasible and expensive, I have no idea. IR to monitor, in a truly dark room, what the participants are doing.
The point being is that the claim in the OP is that he can "see" in total darkness.

The controls need to be equipment that can record in the "normal" range of human eyesight in low/no light levels as well as those beyond the scientific norms.

All we need to do to help the OP to test his claim is to cover the physical range of "normal" eyesight to test whether his "no light" claim holds water as well as recording into the EV ranges beyond, as potential controls.

Nothing of worth can be had from this discussion until the OP has done some basic tests on his potential ability.

The above assumptions are based on the OP statement,
"I have been conducting experimentation and at one time found myself seeing with infra-vision in total darkness. ". In particular, his claim that he could "see" his own arm/hand.

[EHocking]

I'm starting to detect serious complications with testing for this particular claim. How do we ensure that the heat patterns are not detected by the heat receptors in the skin and not the eyes? How would we disable this ordinary heat sensing system of the skin? A crucial component of testing this claim must be that this claimant must perform better than several control persons as the beginnings to ensure that ordinary heat detection is not used intentionally or unintentionally by the claimant to produce the claimed experience of infrared-vision through eyesight.Easy. The OP has to clearly demonstrate that his perceptions are actually happening.

At this point, we shouldn't need to concern ourselve with whether he is "better" than "average", but that it is actually occurring.

All else is just blather.

I'm fully prepared to aid the OP in designing a valid test of the claim.
Until that is attempted, the rest is mere conjecture. Let's see some results.

I work on benefit of the doubt. I have no valid reason to doubt the OP's honesty in their claim, despite years of personal disappointment in participation of these sorts of claims, so am quite willing to help the OP to design a test of their alleged abilities based on the assumption that the OP is honestly portraying their claim here.

[shep]

I'm intrigued at the claims that warm things appear as a "reddish" colour and edges have a distinct colour, etc... this is a clear indication that though infrared might be outside the visible spectrum, you're "seeing" it, not sensing it some other way.

But why? Why are warm things red, just like in the movies?

The classic "thermal" appearance of infrared images we are shown today is just the result of the imaging techniques/standards used to make a visible photo for us naked-eye-humans, in a way that allows us to determine the temperature at different points.

http://www.thermalimaging.com.au/site/ti-colours.html

That said, I once read a book called "Musicophilia" (Oliver Sacks) that talks about music synesthesia, and strange connections some brains make between colour and sounds... it can result in truly bizarre experiences. Is it possible the OP is extremely heat-sensitive and are experiencing heat-colour synesthesia?

If I sound overly optimistic about the OP's claims, let me explain: I'm not. But I appreciate the OP's acceptance that if it exists, it ain't paranormal, and I wanted to mention the music synesthesia as a possible analogy to what he experiences with heat, and also warn that it sounds highly suspicious that the experience of 'seeing' infrared appears to be exactly how we decided to standardise thermal photo printing.

(also, I agree that it doesn't sound hard to demonstrate, and is most likely a complicated illusion or delusion but I didn't see anyone else mention the dubious visual experience)

-k.

ETA: spelling and removing personal pronouns

[Dan O.]

Noting that this discussion is not in the MDC forum, the OP wants a protocol for developing the ability and not a test protocol for the MDC. In fact, it's rather pointless to start writing the MDC protocol until you have some idea what the ability is.

Miss_Kitt is on the right track to distinguish patterns of different temperatures but the use of ice-cold vs normal may be inappropriate since the only data provided was the distinguishing of a body temperature hand against a cold cave wall. The easiest demonstration of the ability would be to have an assistant hold up their hand in a dark cool room and if you can see where it is you would be able to reach out and touch it.

I thought of this protocol while sitting in a dark lower passage of Carlsbad Cavern. I don't remember if I actually tested the protocol because my thought at the time was that it really wasn't as dark as the tour guide said it was.

Once you have a demonstration that there is some ability, you can proceed to refine the protocol to eliminate other natural explanations.

[VisionFromFeeling]

shep,
I'm intrigued at the claims that warm things appear as a "reddish" colour and edges have a distinct colour, etc... this is a clear indication that though infrared might be outside the visible spectrum, you're "seeing" it, not sensing it some other way.I really don't see how that would be clear indication that the claimant is seeing it and not sensing it through perhaps ordinary heat perception and translating it to imagery.

But why? Why are warm things red, just like in the movies?
The classic "thermal" appearance of infrared images we are shown today is just the result of the imaging techniques/standards used to make a visible photo for us naked-eye-humans, in a way that allows us to determine the temperature at different points.
and also warn that it sounds highly suspicious that the experience of 'seeing' infrared appears to be exactly how we decided to standardise thermal photo printing.If I had to make the best prediction for what "color" infrared would be, I would have to say red. Because if you follow the electromagnetic spectrum across the visible spectrum, from yellow, to orange, to red, and beyond, it would be somewhat safe to assume that the infrared region would appear as something similar to red if we could see it. So red is definitely the very best among the colors that we see to use to depict infrared, and not some random choice made by the film industry or by technology design.

[MostlyHarmless]

If it is truly IR vision, just set up a bank of IR LED's, toss a die in the other room to choose the number to turn on and ask the subject over intercom how many are lit.

[shep]

If it is truly IR vision, just set up a bank of IR LED's, toss a die in the other room to choose the number to turn on and ask the subject over intercom how many are lit.

Very sensible, embarrassed I didn't think of it.

-k.

[VisionFromFeeling]

MostlyHarmless,
Yes, but infrared radiation is the same as heat. How do we know that he isn't sensing it by means of normal heat sensory perception? I still say we must have other control persons who do not claim to see infrared who take the test with the claimant to see whether the claimant produces a significant result that indicates an out-of-the-ordinary skill.

Or, at least at some point along the investigation, control persons must be used to determine if the skill is in fact out of the ordinary, or something normal. We are not talking "to see undetectable X-rays" or something like that. Humans are all equipped with perfectly functioning sensory receptors that DETECT HEAT! It's like if a claimant says that they can taste sound, and we put them in a room with soundwaves and they say they are tasting it, and without disabling the sense of hearing. What's with everyone today? Are we being Skeptics or not? :confused:

Clarification: Infrared radiation is outside the range of visible radiation for humans, just like is ultraviolet radiation, or X-rays, to mention a few categories. That means that humans can not see infrared light. However, humans use a different sensory organ to detect infrared radiation: the sense of feeling. I see a great flaw in the suggested test procedures. A claimant can definitely feel the heatwaves. This needs to be disabled somehow. Alternatively, the claimant needs to demonstrate that his skill is beyond what other control persons can acchieve.

[Jeff Corey]

And can you identify the "organ" (receptor is the scientific term) that detects heat?
Because this is wrong. " However, humans use a different sensory organ to detect infrared radiation: the sense of feeling."
There is a sense called "touch" which uses pressure receptors, there is pain and temperature. No sense called "feeling".

[MostlyHarmless]

MostlyHarmless,
Yes, but infrared radiation is the same as heat. How do we know that he isn't sensing it by means of normal heat sensory perception? I still say we must have other control persons who do not claim to see infrared who take the test with the claimant to see whether the claimant produces a significant result that indicates an out-of-the-ordinary skill.

Or, at least at some point along the investigation, control persons must be used to determine if the skill is in fact out of the ordinary, or something normal. We are not talking "to see undetectable X-rays" or something like that. Humans are all equipped with perfectly functioning sensory receptors that DETECT HEAT! It's like if a claimant says that they can taste sound, and we put them in a room with soundwaves and they say they are tasting it, and without disabling the sense of hearing. What's with everyone today? Are we being Skeptics or not? :confused:

Clarification: Infrared radiation is outside the range of visible radiation for humans, just like is ultraviolet radiation, or X-rays, to mention a few categories. That means that humans can not see infrared light. However, humans use a different sensory organ to detect infrared radiation: the sense of feeling. I see a great flaw in the suggested test procedures. A claimant can definitely feel the heatwaves. This needs to be disabled somehow. Alternatively, the claimant needs to demonstrate that his skill is beyond what other control persons can acchieve.

Do you feel the IR light every time you change the channel on your TV? Does anybody?

[Uncayimmy]

If I had to make the best prediction for what "color" infrared would be, I would have to say red. Because if you follow the electromagnetic spectrum across the visible spectrum, from yellow, to orange, to red, and beyond, it would be somewhat safe to assume that the infrared region would appear as something similar to red if we could see it. So red is definitely the very best among the colors that we see to use to depict infrared, and not some random choice made by the film industry or by technology design.

Red is associated with heat. The embers in a fire are red. When we get hot, our skin turns red. What other color would one expect to be used to artificially represent something we consider to be heat detection?

[shep]

Red is associated with heat. The embers in a fire are red. When we get hot, our skin turns red. What other color would one expect to be used to artificially represent something we consider to be heat detection?

Exactly. So if this was something *I* was experiencing, the fact that my own perception seemed to match the artificially-designed representations would be a warning sign that it could all be a trick of my mind.

I'm not a thermal imaging expert, I just wanted to mention it.

[Miss_Kitt]

True, if the area of perception is only things "hotter than" room air, ice in the ice-chest wouldn't work. However, a set of hot water bottles--assuming they're hot enough--in the same set-up should!

I am partial to digit identification because it is so distinct to "seeing" rather than just detecting a generic heat source. And at the distance of 12 or so feet (approx 4 meters), I would consider skin sensitivity good enough to identify specific digits to be just about as good as a supernatural ability!!

In fact, there's no reason why the subject couldn't try both versions (though one expects on different occasions) to see how it goes. Since at this stage we're still trying to identify what the subject can and cannot do, not design a more rigorous test, that might be a good place to start. Jozen-Bo, do I recall correctly that you're not sure exactly what you can and can't detect?

Just my thoughts, Miss Kitt

@ VfF, just a suggestion: Don't spend a lot of time talking about your own 'abilities' and unusual experiences here. It could feel like trying to hijack the thread.

[Dan O.]

If it is truly IR vision, just set up a bank of IR LED's, toss a die in the other room to choose the number to turn on and ask the subject over intercom how many are lit.

You need to check the spectrum of the IR LEDs you use to be sure there is no overlap with normal vision. Here is a resource to get started with: http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/pls.htm. The IR LEDs are near the bottom of page 1. The IR LEDs will show up easily on some digital cameras.

[VisionFromFeeling]

MostlyHarmless,
Do you feel the IR light every time you change the channel on your TV? Does anybody? But is the extent of IR emission from the television equivalent to those suggested by Forum members for the test procedures?

shep,
Exactly. So if this was something *I* was experiencing, the fact that my own perception seemed to match the artificially-designed representations would be a warning sign that it could all be a trick of my mind.But I still don't agree with this statement. You see, we are trying to say that red would be the color closest associated to infrared in reality, so perceiving IR as red could instead be suspected as a realistic perception. Whereas, if someone was to "see" IR as green, for instance, now THAT would raise some suspicion since IR is definitely not green! To perceive IR as red should raise the least level of suspicion, in my opinion.

Miss_Kitt,
@ VfF, just a suggestion: Don't spend a lot of time talking about your own 'abilities' and unusual experiences here. It could feel like trying to hijack the thread. I wasn't. I am discussing the paranormal claim with the claimant and pointing out complications with suggested test procedures. And I have every right to offer advice based on my own background since it happens to be very similar to the statements made by this claimant. I have plenty of experience as well as support to offer this claimant since I've been through much of this myself, and also since we both share having very reminiscent paranormal experiences! So *****! :)

ETA: Censored a word that I know the Moderators don't like before they beat me to it. Now you all will have to spend eternity wondering what word I said. It isn't a bad word, but it isn't approved of here.

[Jeff Corey]

Is it röd?

[Ernie M]

Red is associated with heat. The embers in a fire are red. When we get hot, our skin turns red. What other color would one expect to be used to artificially represent something we consider to be heat detection?

Exactly. So if this was something *I* was experiencing, the fact that my own perception seemed to match the artificially-designed representations would be a warning sign that it could all be a trick of my mind.

I'm not a thermal imaging expert, I just wanted to mention it.

Thinking that all heat is rendered as a red color is based on misconceptions.

If VisionFromFeeling is supposed to be a college student studying optics, how come she doesn't have a basic understanding of infrared?

Molten steel can glow white-hot.

A natural gas flame on a stove can glow blue, and is significantly hotter than a person flush-red with a fever.

What is the color (or more accurately, what is the color range) of a supernova? It's not just "red."

Here's a brief description from FLIR SYSTEMS, "The global leader in infrared cameras (http://www.flirthermography.com/about/)"
Note that ice cubes emit infrared.

Take a look at this explanation about how a color range (http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/spectroscopyhow.html), "spectra" are produced. This might not be the best example of what color "hot" objects are rendered, but you can do an Internet search for more descriptions.

[Jeff Corey]

True, consider the spectra of stars.

[Uncayimmy]

MostlyHarmless,
Yes, but infrared radiation is the same as heat.
Sort of, but not really. All light will heat substances that absorb a given frequency.

Clarification: Infrared radiation is outside the range of visible radiation for humans, just like is ultraviolet radiation, or X-rays, to mention a few categories. That means that humans can not see infrared light. However, humans use a different sensory organ to detect infrared radiation: the sense of feeling.
Do you have any evidence that humans detect infrared radiation? I understand that a pit viper can do it, but from what I understand humans don't sense the infrared radiation. They sense temperature differences based on how quickly the heat is being exchanged. Thus an ice cube seems colder than a block of balsa wood at the same temperature.

Our eyes are technically "heated" by visible light, but we're not really sensing temperature. We're detecting those wavelengths.

[Uncayimmy]

Thinking that all heat is rendered as a red color is based on misconceptions.
I'm not sure why you quoted Shep and myself. We are both arguing that red and heat are linked in the minds of most people. The idea is a misconception, sure, but it is nonetheless firmly planted in the psyche of humans. A quick Google search shows that "red hot" has 54,000,000 hits to just 3,000,000 hits for "white hot." Searches for "purple hot" are pretty scarce.

Sunburn is red. Burn yourself and you get a red mark and a blister. Many types of peppers are red. These along with the other examples I gave were to show why it would be such a common belief. Most of us have seen campfires with red coals. Few of us have seen molten steel or even understand what goes on in stars.

So, as Shep pointed out, if I'm going to imagine I am detecting heat visually, my subconscious is more likely to choose red than just about any other color. It's not unlike those who see ghostly apparitions of religious figures see them as they are represented in their local church.

[shep]

You see, we are trying to say that red would be the color closest associated to infrared in reality, so perceiving IR as red could instead be suspected as a realistic perception. Whereas, if someone was to "see" IR as green, for instance, now THAT would raise some suspicion since IR is definitely not green! To perceive IR as red should raise the least level of suspicion, in my opinion.

Sure, your point is just that it's the closest visible colour on a spectrum chart to the IR ranges, and I'm sure that's why we call the higher ranges infra 'red' in the first place.

Time for lazy Google-based research:

Humans, at normal body temperature, radiate most strongly in the infrared at a wavelength of about 10 microns

That's a long way from red, compared to the difference in wavelength between each of the visible colours..
In infrared photography, red would indicate that a tiny amount of visible light has passed through the filter, and maybe I could be pushed to accept that theoretically, early NIR wavelengths should look reddish, but we are dealing with heat here.

See Ernie M's other comments re: 'natural' heat colours.

Incidentally, snakes have good (even 3D) detection at 5 - 30microns, but I'm pretty sure the claimant would have noticed if he had something like these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Pit_Organs_of_Two_Different_Snakes.jpg) on his head somewhere...

[Jozen-Bo]

There is so much to catch up on, I've been reading for the last 20 minutes or so. I am short on time and will be having company for the next few days, so I'll focus on answering the questions and simply reading the statements. If I find a little time in between here and then during the next days, I'll see if I can drop in and catch up. Considering that I am moving in the next month, I'll have my hands full. So...the questions...

[Jozen-Bo]

Jozen-Bo -- The time you saw your own body, was anyone else with you?

No, I was alone.

I am curious because it would certainly not be unique to you if your brain "created" imagery of your body parts based upon your proprioception of where they were/what they were doing. If, however, you could see details of someone else's body movements, that would be different.

Also, I am unclear from the various back-and-forth comments, but did you say you could, or could not, read in the condition of heavy darkness?

I did not say I could read. I didn't do any reading and I don't think I could take a book and read it in those conditions.

If your perception is temperature-based, then another handy testing method might involve having a styrofoam ice chest with a slot cut in its side. A series of stencil-type numerals--that is, ones that have the digit cut out, leaving a hole (or several holes) in the shape of the number--could be selected and placed in the slot. The order of the digits could be determined by the throw of a die, to make them random. You would then be able to read the number based upon the digits emitting air that is colder than the room temperature...

The ice chest is filled with ice or icy containers (frozen bottles of water are good for this) so that the interior is cold. The chest is covered with a blanket (or other light and heat insulator) and is moved into the test room. Test subject enters the room and waits until his eyes adjust for the ambient light exposure from moving to the room. Subject is seated, say, 12 feet away from the chest's location. The test assistant, upon receiving the signal, uncovers the face of the chest that contains the slot with its cut-outs (this face is of course pointed toward the subject). Subject then reads the digits aloud--this is recorded--and the chest is re-covered to prevent tampering. Mild lighting is brought into the room, and the digits given by the subject are compared to the actual digits in the slot/wall.

An additional control could be to have the numbers placed in the slot randomly selected by a third party, who notes the digits/blanks and their order, sets up the stencils, and covers the chest before it is carried into the test room by assistant. This means that, without moving the blanket, the assistant cannot know what the numerals are.


This is just a quick pre-test that could be used to easily determine if temperature is in fact what is being seen, and if the subject can see complex shapes based upon temperature differences. If this test is failed, then the subject would need to do additional investigations to determine what wavelengths of the EM spectrum are being perceived. It has the advantages of being very inexpensive to set up and perform; using only readily-available materials; and testing several aspects of the Ability at once.

For example, it may be that you can detect that there is something cold over there, but not actually read the numerals; or, you can detect aspects of the shape, but imprecisely -- "1" being read as "7" and "6" as "8". The possible inclusion of "blank" cardboard in some slots will also offer some ability to separate guessing from seeing.

Just an idea, but it's valuable to determine what it is you can or can't do before working out a big, conplex protocol about it. To do so, you need to have a clear certainty of what you can or can't do. The Million Dollar Challenge will require you to do some preliminary demonstrations before academics and get some public attention before going into preliminary testing anyway, so this is a good first step.

Feel free to use this if it strikes you as sensible, I would be happy to help you with working out the details on how digit selection should work, etc.

Good luck on your research, Miss Kitt

PS It might be worthwhile to look at actually using commercial stencils--or at least, using them to guide cutting shapes in thicker cardboard--because those have been designed to present digits in a typeface that makes it difficult to confuse them.

I find this to be a great idea as well. I will try to set up for the exercises in the next couple of days, though my time will be much easier once I am done moving. I will be trying to reproduce the results and all of the ideas I am getting here will be useful when conducting tests prior to any protocols. I will most likely, off course, construct the ones that are the easiest to set up and cost the least amount of money. Thanks for the input!

[Akhenaten]

Jozen-Bo,

So everything which you see in total darkness, that you call infra-vision (and that I would probably call infrared-vision), you see in the color red? Personally I can often see myself in a totally dark room but with a bright white color. Not that I'm suggesting a paranormal claim. But other people have also seen a bright white light around me so maybe it's just me. ;)

Ha ha. Just like me. I think those who think they have some exciting brand new breakthrough in their hands can all relate to what you just said, whereas skeptics and scientists in general might be opposed to that and encourage sharing. Personally I think that it is better to be careful, so don't share anything that might be valuable to you in the end, just in case. There are thieves out there.

(This was not said to VisionFromFeeling)Let me give you some advice from a fellow paranormal claimant who's been here on the JREF Forums for a few months now. Some of the Skeptics here can come across as very rude and negative, but the way I deal with it is try to extract the meaning from what they say and disregard how it was said. Some of them don't know how to talk polite, but they really are valuable as Skeptics.



@ VfF, just a suggestion: Don't spend a lot of time talking about your own 'abilities' and unusual experiences here. It could feel like trying to hijack the thread.


Miss_Kitt,
I wasn't. I am discussing the paranormal claim with the claimant and pointing out complications with suggested test procedures.

<prattlesnip>





oh rly?

[Jozen-Bo]

Jozen-Bo,
In a reply to your first post on this thread, #1 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4529439&postcount=1), before I have read any of the continuing discussions here,

It is nice that you come here to discuss with us your interest in taking part in the JREF million dollar challenge. I find it interesting to learn about the claims that arise here, and how the claimants (as yourself) are reasoning around their supposed paranormal experience and how they wish to demonstrate and verify it to the skeptical and scientific community. So thank you for sharing that.

Thank you!

So it seems that this deals with an unusual skill that you have trained yourself for. My first question is, how have you ensured that your testing environment was in total darkness? Do you have access to such an environment that is entirely without a lightsource? To see in total darkness is very interesting to me, I am studying optics and am very fascinated by most things dealing with light and human sensory perception. If the condition of total darkness is met within your testing procedures, I am definitely very interested in your claim.

I was living in Kiel, Germany at the time in a rather large apartment with a long hall between the dining room, two bedrooms and a bathroom. One of the rooms and the dining room have pull down metal sliders over the windows, which shuts off any moonlight of sorts. The other bedroom had a huge bed before the door seal's bottom, casting a shadow that would not let light through, plus the angle of the door to the window and the curtains is such that light would not fall on that seal. The bathroom has no windows at all. German walls are concrete monsters compared to American standards.

Within the hall, the only possible source for an intrusion would be at those door seals, though because of the conditions stated above, no light was getting through into the hall. It was also night and I was laying down to sleep but had to use the bathroom before falling asleep. When I went into the hall and shut the door behind me and started for the bathroom door I realized it was utterly dark and I was seeing. I stopped to look around the hall and could observe the door frames, handles, the closet doors within the halls, the floor rims of the walls and then I observed my hands in front of my face.

What strike me as odd and interesting was that my own body was a low illuminate reddish color, distinguishable from the dark bluish walls in the background. The edges that allows me to make out the details where slightly a lighter color of blue then from the other surfaces. Everything had an illuminated quality of a extremely low lit lantern or a dying coal in a fireplace.

I looked carefully at the door seals and it become obvious that no light was sneaking through them. I was still having a hard time believing it and I moved back and forth through the hall a few times before going into the bathroom. I figured, even if the tiniest fraction came through those seals, there is no way it could reach the bathroom, which was shut off from any possible source due to the angle of the door and the conditions within the bathroom. I went in.

After entering I closed the door behind me. To my astonishment I could still see, I knew where the toilet was, the bathtub, I could even see the table with shampoos and toothbrushes and such. I remained in the bathroom for a few minutes observing this, it was warmer in there and a bit easier to see in then even in the halls, yet should of been darker and more difficult. Amazed by the experience, I noted it and then turned the lights on and went to the bathroom.

I had the experience a couple more times, though not as clearly and I wasn't too concerned with the experience at the time, I made a mental note of it and then begin to ask myself how could this happen? I arrived at an answer that seemed plausible and realized it would be very difficult to prove without proper equipment, so I put the whole idea on hold, because I was to caught up in the other things that where happening, which where much more intense, interesting, and demanding of attention.

Now I am picking it up again.

And that is perfectly alright by me that you would suspect your experience to be paranormal, since you claim to have experienced something which you can not explain. That is when further investigation is necessary in order to seek scientific explanations for what you experience. And, keeping in mind of course, that what we find out, if we reach a conclusion in your investigation of your experience, it might end up falling within the realm of normal, and not paranormal after all. Either way, I am quite intrigued by your claim.

The fact that you say none of your experiences can be controlled and occur unpredictably should not discourage an investigation or test. Since why not wait around in the room until something does occur?

I'll have to ponder on this one. I suspect there are ways to figure out what is happening, and I am searching for a means to better understand. Ideas come in time, possibilities for testing that I didn't think of earlier.

One way perhaps to try to approach proof that you can see energy radiating out of someone's brain, is, can you detect the whereabouts of persons in a room that is totally without light, if other means of detection are disabled? Also, can you distinguish a different type of energy radiating from different individuals, then perhaps you could indicate this by showing on a test that you could distinguish different individuals not only by their location but by identifying the individuals as well?

I would say I can feel the difference between different people without even looking at them or using my eyes. If my wife stood next to me without moving or saying a word and so that I could not hear her breathing nor smell her I am certain I could detect the difference then if it were some stranger. I have noted this before I ever began working with these patterns when I was younger, how I sensed a different feel in the room with my father from my mother.

One of the observation from my research is an increase in sensitivity of the body, I have found that it can reach degrees of sensitivity that allow for extended perception outside the use of ocular sensing.


I have also observed that all of the senses become more sensitive, from smelling to hearing. I think these will be the easiest to set up tests for. I've had my sense of smell bolstered to the extent that I could never compare prior in life. I would smell many different smells at once and it seemed to almost overstimulate my mind, as many thought would follow. A good example is a public bathroom at work, before amplifying the sense of smell through experimentation I could go into it and barely notice the stink, there where refresheners in in each stall and urinal. No one there seemed offended nor I. After some time into the experimentation, I couldn't bare to go in there, it was like walking into something from a horror film and the stink would follow me down the hall after leaving. It was nauseating.


These changes, however, have nothing or very little (based on observation, that is) to do with the developing of infra-red vision, because I was using a different pattern system altogether and have noted that apparently this other system either does not work or is not as effective for such a development.


How do you perceive this energy radiating out of someone's brain? Do you see it in your mind only, or in the room itself? Is it colorful, or is it a sense of feeling? Please describe the experience for us.

I haven't seen any for some time now. I stopped the experiment a few months ago, and it took about two weeks for the effects to settle down or wear off. When I did see it, it would not always appear the same from time to time. Sometimes I would see shadowy transparent clouds twirling right out or at times they would seem like rippling vibrations, at other times as silver cords, or like waves rolling. On some occasions they would make distinct patterns, once I saw what looked like a yin-yang or such. I haven't a clue what they mean, though I suspect it involves an activity of the brain and mind from where I see them emanate.

I do not see it in my mind only. I see the energy moving through the room, like a fume, only not moving like a fume moves. There are varying colors that I have observed, from a red-glow, to silver, to shadowy, to a bluish-silver, and at times a transparent ripple with no color present. I see it so clearly that I would distinguish it as separate from a feeling in the same way one would separate seeing a candle light from the feeling of cutting their finger. These energies are very distinct and visible when seen.

And whether you caused it or not should not matter. A paranormal experience should be paranormal whether it is a skill you cause at will or is a skill you simply possess and do not control over when it happens. I definitely encourage you to continue investigating your interesting experience.

How does psychology relate to your experience? Just curious.

I am writing a thesis that breaches on this. In it I am following the physical light waves that reflect from the surface of this spinning device, how they enter the eyes, move through the nerves to the visual cortex centers of the brain, and then how these patterns impress upon the cellular structure on down to the molecular and even quantum levels. The thesis begins with well established knowledge at the beginning of the source and goes deeper in to theory as it approaches its destination.

I am certain that psychological and physiological changes are occurring, I believe that many psychologists are going to have a hay-day in the future with this discovery after I have gathered sufficient evidence that there is a science to it, be it that it is only emerging in an infantile stage of develop, which is one that is full of confusion and unclarity.

And what specificly do you define as the "paranormal experiences" in your claimed experience? Before we can label whether it is paranormal or not, would you care to further describe what the experience is in greater detail? And then I am sure there is plenty of research data already available relating to what humans may perceive in a dark room that could answer your question. Could be it is a normal phenomenon. Have you had other control persons attempt to experience what you have experienced in order to try to determine whether you in fact do possess a skill that is out of the ordinary?

I suppose that normal people don't see infra-red vision, thus it is paranormal until and unless we can explain what is happening. I plan on going over the experience in greater detail soon. I can say this quickly, that the experience changes with the system used. I can use that map to keep track of dreams and results have shown from those who have experimented that using this calendar as a dream map induces longer, clearer, and more consistent dreaming from night to night. Other systems provide other possible results, and thus, other kinds of experiences. This is one of the reasons I will be going over the experiences or possible experiences soon, as well as possible systems where I have no experience of my own to aid in predicting what may happen or could be expected.

I have contact with some others who are experimenting with this, though I do not know the details by which they are performing, without any control measures I find it difficult to generate a data base with them, though their experiences are certainly valuable to listen to and do help me to construct a better picture of what is going on here. There are other reports, though these people are just beginning the experiment, whereas I have been working with it for the last four and a half years. Given that they continue, I am curious what they will experience and speak of over time. The effects build up in different ways because of the wide range of different possible approaches.


Moving your consciousness into a parallel universe? How on earth would you prove that? What kind of physical scientific evidence could you possibly bring about to prove that your consciousness did in fact visit a parallel universe? Could you perhaps make some observations in that parallel universe such as accessing remote viewing skills, information that could then be brought back to our universe and be verified. What do you think? Science is very limited today, it can not prove everything that does exist or everything that does occur. Even if you did visit a parallel universe it might not be possible to prove that. I don't know.

This experience has been very difficult to reproduce, I've had out of the body experiences, but most of them didn't go so far. One of the difficulties is not getting psyched out by the warping (I've termed this sort of experience warping, as in warping into other places), which is a rush, adrenaline blast, and quick unnerving. Most people here probably can't imagine what it is like to jump out of your flesh.

I will have to discuss this more later, as it is also a very complicate aspect of its own, one that I find harder to understand and evaluate then even the infra-red vision. The full jump was one of the most intense experiences of my life and when I was there I become afraid that I wouldn't figure out how to get back, and to make the situation even stranger I encountered myself there, or what appeared to look just like me. Other things happened, seeming to indicate that I shouldn't be there witnessing even for myself what I was, that it should never have happened, but it did. I haven't done much to reproduce these sort of results, when I consider how intense it was, I find that I need more time to prepare. I cannot even begin to forget the experience, and am very eager to eventually get back to delving into this matter and uncovering what I can.


I think there may be a way to prove it, but I simply haven't though of how yet. If I can figure out how to reproduce these results over and over, I think proven it will be far easier, there have been two other people that I know of that have stated they experienced a warping of sort, that they where somehow going somewhere, though they where both confused by the experience and from what I gather, neither made a full warp, only a half warp in which they retreated from due to the shock. This is utterly inconclusive at the moment. It is also exciting beyond description, given time I am sure it will be better investigated.


You seem to be suggesting several interesting experiences of yours, but I personally feel that the infra-vision might be the better to focus on rather than access to a parallel universe. Easier to test, and also I think easier for you to experience, am I right?

Out of everything I've experienced I suspect that it will be the easiest to reproduce and test, yes. As I consider these testing means more and more I find my mind beginning to think of new ideas for testing. It's a good exercise!


Given that the human development of infrared-vision would not already be a known concept, I think you are right that if you have designed a method for developing this ability in humans you would definitely bring about a lot of money for yourself. Many people would love to read the books, to take the courses and to learn this skill, and lots of scientific research would love for your assistance. (Alright Skeptics, don't tell me not to "encourage the woo" or anything like that. I encourage rational but objective thinking and hopefully this person can reach a true and final conclusion about their experience.)

Speaking from the perspective of a science student, I'd like to ask you what science background you have? I would highly encourage you to engage other scientists in your research of this experience if you can show that there is something of interest in your experience, because they may have plenty of expertise that would be valuable. Although I do encourage you regardless of your own science background to be scientifically interested in investigating your experience.

I took various courses both in college and at the University I went to. My major was in architecture, not science. I simply enjoyed it and have always found it interesting and so I have studied it in this way. I continued to study science even after school, which is one of the reasons why I am now working with this. I will be applying the scientific approach and seeing what I can turn up, I have considered many different means of gathering the data and am now working with the ideas I find most interesting and which I believe others will find most interesting, as well as that which could provide the hardest evidence for making a case.

I think you should definitely take the time to look into your experience. I think the very first thing to start with, is reading about human perception in darkness and whether this experience of infrared vision has already been accounted for in science. Many "new discoveries" have already been found by someone else. Someone might re-invent the telephone only to find out that someone else beat them to it. So do a background check first, I think.

I think your idea is very interesting and I encourage you to continue with investigating your experience, and thank you for sharing it here with us. If indeed you have developed a paranormal ability for yourself I will be here helping you toward the million dollar challenge, if that is where you see yourself headed.

I am a paranormal claimant myself, Vision From Feeling Thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128149), www.visionfromfeeling.com (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com), and my claim is somewhat similar to yours. I am a science student of chemistry and optical physics and am very interested in following your investigation. Although I experience something possibly paranormal myself, I do intend to be a Skeptic as well, and please do not consider me a competitor in this endeavour, I am supporting you and let's find out what your experience is, whether it turns out to be paranormal, or normal.

I will follow up on that link and read up on what you offer. I appreciate the encouragement and will be doings just that. I am very excited and happy to be doing what I do, it is fascinating and rewarding work to partake in.

My Best Regards,
Jozen-Bo

[Jozen-Bo]

I can't see how we can have any video recording equipment in the dark room, as it would need a light source to record from (ignoring the fact of the lights on the camera). An IR light source is no appropriate, as this may be a condition we are testing for.

I recall watching wildlife documentations where ultra-violet sensors where used to video record the activities of nocturnal species. I do not think these would interfere with a test.

[Jozen-Bo]

Yeah, I could see the values you would probably have used, but I didn't correct them in my table in case there was a reason unknown to me for the slight variations. I suspect they occur because of jpeg compression.

As an aside, I can discern all the colours very well, but as you point out, the greens are the hardest to differentiate.

I like your choice of colour names, by the way.

Thanks, I spent hours going through various good names until I narrowed down to those one! Myself, I can discern all the colors with the exception of three of the greens, which simply appear the same. Sometimes, however, I am able to make out a slight variant, though seeing different shades green isn't my specialty (I can still see the difference between Jade and Jasper...).

Well, I'm intrigued. I sincerely look forward to seeing how this pans out.

R&D means Research and Development which is what you're doing, more or less :)

Thanks again. Time will tell what turns up.


Research and Development have a long ways to go, though I have encountered plenty of evidence that there is something to investigate and thus find both research and development to be crucial in figuring out exactly what this is and what can be done with it (given that it can be developed as much as I suspect, finding out exactly what it is may prove difficult and provide a source for further research...which could lead to new developments...).

[Jozen-Bo]

JB,
Pay close attention to VFF's advice. If you follow it, you may rest assured that your claim will never be disproven.

I already wrote a simple theory which makes three claims. I would love to see it get disproved!!!

[Philosaur]

I am pretty sure I claimed they have ULTRA-VIOLET vision, a fact well known by many. I needn't look very far to settle this, should any dispute it.

If by "they" you still mean cats, then I dispute it. Please provide a reference.

Incidentally, the last time I saw the term "infravision" was in a D&D rulebook.

[Jozen-Bo]

Jozen-Bo,

So everything which you see in total darkness, that you call infra-vision (and that I would probably call infrared-vision), you see in the color red? Personally I can often see myself in a totally dark room but with a bright white color. Not that I'm suggesting a paranormal claim. But other people have also seen a bright white light around me so maybe it's just me. ;)

...

...



I was tired, if I wouldn't have been I would have written infra-red vision. Oh well. I'd see red and blue, but not like in a movie such as predator. The illumination if compared is much less, a lot more darkness though the colors there were dimly illuminated; also, the amount of detail was much better in my case then in the movie predator, in that version everything is too bright and interferes with imaging detail, whereas there is no blurry loss of detail in my case, vision was smooth and the edges well defined, though not as immediately evident because they were also quite dim.


Do infrared waves travel through such a material in order to reach the eye? Do you think you are seeing the infrared radiation with your eyes, and that your talent is due to the development of the eyes and optical information processing in the brain, or could it be that you are feeling the infrared radiation, since infrared radiation is the very same thing as heat. Could it be that you have developed a skill in feeling the location, the extent, and the patterns of heat waves? What do you think.

Your first question is a good one, I'll see if I can find an answer. It is possible that a combination of the above mentioned is at work, as I have observed that other senses are affected as well, they tend to be stronger. I think that testing will be a valuable aid in finding answers to those questions. I look forward to finishing up with this moving process soon so I can begin to conduct the conditions and start utilizing some of the good ideas others have provided.

However this poses a problem, since the detection of heat is not a paranormal ability at all. All human beings are equipped with the sensory system of detecting heat. Your performance would have to be compared with other control persons to determine whether your heat detection skill - which is what the infra-vision seems to be - is something that is beyond what most of us can acchieve. Do you have friends available who can try to do what you do to compare the results?

No, I've moved too many great distances too frequently these last few years and find myself currently in a strange large city. I would like to put together something for making comparisons, but it seems a bad time at the moment given I am not sure where I will move to next (it could be far or near). I think, given patience and exertion that it could be managed.

I find it very interesting that you say that you are actually using your eyes to detect infrared waves, when in fact all across the body there are receptors for infrared waves embedded in the skin. How do you experience that your eyes detect the infrared? Do you feel your eyes working when you experience infra-vision? Does your infrared perception cease when you close your eyes? I am very interested.

Would that relate to your infrared vision in any way?

Yeah, I was looking around with them turning my head all about, moving, and opening and closing them in the dark. That was one of the queues, because when I closed them I couldn't see.


Good Questions!

[Ernie M]

I'm not sure why you quoted Shep and myself. We are both arguing that red and heat are linked in the minds of most people. The idea is a misconception, sure, but it is nonetheless firmly planted in the psyche of humans. A quick Google search shows that "red hot" has 54,000,000 hits to just 3,000,000 hits for "white hot." Searches for "purple hot" are pretty scarce.

Sunburn is red. Burn yourself and you get a red mark and a blister. Many types of peppers are red. These along with the other examples I gave were to show why it would be such a common belief. Most of us have seen campfires with red coals. Few of us have seen molten steel or even understand what goes on in stars.

So, as Shep pointed out, if I'm going to imagine I am detecting heat visually, my subconscious is more likely to choose red than just about any other color. It's not unlike those who see ghostly apparitions of religious figures see them as they are represented in their local church.

I apologize to UncaYimmy and Shep.
Please accept my apology. I misunderstood your posts, because I initially believed that you thought all heat seen by the human eye is red in color. I agree that many people wrongly associate "hot" items as appearing to be red.

This also brings up another issue. The red color which people associate as being red-hot lies within the spectrum of visible light. But since infrared radiation is not able to be seen by the unaided eye, then why is it portrayed as being red?

MostlyHarmless,
[...]

shep,
But I still don't agree with this statement. You see, we are trying to say that red would be the color closest associated to infrared in reality, so perceiving IR as red could instead be suspected as a realistic perception. Whereas, if someone was to "see" IR as green, for instance, now THAT would raise some suspicion since IR is definitely not green! To perceive IR as red should raise the least level of suspicion, in my opinion.

[...]

[...]

VFF, please cite your source that infrared is "red," and if it were green, then that would be "suspicious." Infrared radiation covers a range of wavelengths, so all is not "red."

Sony NightShot- infrared as monochrome green
Sony developed an infrared technology that's been around a while, called NightShot. It renders images in green. Green looks ethereal and ghostly so you see it used on ghost hunting shows a lot. Many times, people's eyes look like they are glowing as if it's spooky or paranormal, when in fact, the effect happens because a person's pupils are dilated because of the darkness, so the infrared light picks up on the blood on the back of the retina. Human eyes appear as if they are glowing because that's what color the red blood is rendered with the technology. Glowing green eyes in Sony NightShot is the equivalency of flash photography producing red eye (http://www.howstuffworks.com/question51.htm). The materials and technology portray infrared as green, not because infrared radiation is green.

Sony Super NightShot- infrared as full-spectrum visible light.
Sony has a newer infrared technology, called Super NightShot.
It renders images in a more natural-looking, full spectrum of light. This doesn't look as ghostly as the green NightShot, so you probably won't see ghost shows using this ;-)

See this for example.
Here's the URL for the jpg's: http://images.vistek.ca/prodimgdetail/231501_a0.jpg
http://images.vistek.ca/prodimgdetail/231501_a0.jpg

[Jozen-Bo]

And can you identify the "organ" (receptor is the scientific term) that detects heat?
Because this is wrong. " However, humans use a different sensory organ to detect infrared radiation: the sense of feeling."
There is a sense called "touch" which uses pressure receptors, there is pain and temperature. No sense called "feeling".

I suspect that it is the photo-receptor cells at work within the back of the eye that undergo a process of changing when exposed to this pattern over time. They are constantly regrowing throughout the day as the process of picking up light and converting it into bio-chemical reactions producing electrons to fire involves these cells getting burnt or damaged with each incoming second to the next in which they are used. Changing the patterns that come in also changes the way they are damaged and thus, the way they regenerate. Given time it is possible that a new pattern arises within the regenerating process itself, as cells are adaptive.


I'm out of time, got to get ready. I look forward to picking up when I get a chance.


I am thankful for the insight and find the critical process of thinking here to be a valuable aid in directing my efforts. Thanks again!

[MRC_Hans]

IR vision, using the eyes, is physically impossible for warm-blooded creatures. Otherwise you could be certain that some nocturnal animals would have developed it, as it would give both predators and prey a great advantage.

The reason it is not possible is that any IR detector can only 'see' objects that are hotter than itself (you cool the detector in sensitive IR cameras). The radiation from objects cooler than the detector will be drowned by the radiation from the detector itself, and will be invisible to it.

Since the retina of your eyes is the potential detector, the detector temperature floor is 37degC (~100F). Only things warmer than that would be visible. So, when you report seeing various objects in the room, it cannot have been IR vision. Even your hands are cooler than your retina, and would be invisible.

Hans

[Jeff Corey]

I suspect that it is the photo-receptor cells at work within the back of the eye that undergo a process of changing when exposed to this pattern over time. They are constantly regrowing throughout the day as the process of picking up light and converting it into bio-chemical reactions producing electrons to fire involves these cells getting burnt or damaged with each incoming second to the next in which they are used. Changing the patterns that come in also changes the way they are damaged and thus, the way they regenerate. Given time it is possible that a new pattern arises within the regenerating process itself, as cells are adaptive...
Now I am not sure what "pattern" you are referring to - is it the rotating disc you showed above? If so, my link to Benham's Top provides some explanations.
If you are talking about the photoreceptors - rods and cones - being damaged by heat and regenerating, that is not at all the way things work. The photopigments break down when hit by photons and then are restored.
"Photopigments are located in photoreceptor outer segment disc membranes. They change their conformation on the perception of photons. The conformational change allows the photopigment to interact with transducin and to start the visual cascade.
"Four photopigments can be differentiated. While rods contain only rhodopsin three types of cones are present in human retinas which contain different photopigments of specific absorption maxima: long wave (red, RCP, 560 nm), middle wave (green, GCP, 530 nm), and short wave (blue, BCP, 420 nm)(4) pigments." www.retina-international.org/sci-news/photopig.htm

MRCHans makes a good case against mammalian infrared vision.

[Philosaur]

IR vision, using the eyes, is physically impossible for warm-blooded creatures. Otherwise you could be certain that some nocturnal animals would have developed it, as it would give both predators and prey a great advantage.

The reason it is not possible is that any IR detector can only 'see' objects that are hotter than itself (you cool the detector in sensitive IR cameras). The radiation from objects cooler than the detector will be drowned by the radiation from the detector itself, and will be invisible to it.

Since the retina of your eyes is the potential detector, the detector temperature floor is 37degC (~100F). Only things warmer than that would be visible. So, when you report seeing various objects in the room, it cannot have been IR vision. Even your hands are cooler than your retina, and would be invisible.

Another way to state this argument (not that it needs it; but reiteration can be handy) is that our eyes do not emit (granted--they sometimes reflect) photons in the visible spectrum, or else we'd be constantly dazzled by the light emanating from within our own eyeballs. But our eyes do emit infrared light, hence the impossibility of seeing anything cooler than the insides of our own eyes.

[Ashles]

Miss_Kitt,
I wasn't. I am discussing the paranormal claim with the claimant and pointing out complications with suggested test procedures. And I have every right to offer advice based on my own background since it happens to be very similar to the statements made by this claimant. I have plenty of experience as well as support to offer this claimant since I've been through much of this myself, and also since we both share having very reminiscent paranormal experiences! So *****! :)
But your experience is that of being totally unable to formulate or carry out a test protocol. :confused:
I fail to see what helpful advice you would be able to provide another claimant.
Unless you suggest they link to your main claim thread and view it as a cutionary tale of what not to do if you genuinely want to test a paranormal ability.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jozen-Bo,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions so carefully. So it seems from your accounts that the so called infra-vision was not something you intended to develop to later experience, but rather it was an experience you stumbled on and discovered unexpectedly.
I arrived at an answer that seemed plausible and realized it would be very difficult to prove without proper equipment, so I put the whole idea on hold, because I was to caught up in the other things that where happening, which where much more intense, interesting, and demanding of attention.However, after your experience you then made a connection with something that you had done prior to the experience that might have developed this ability of infra-vision, am I right? You have several times mentioned that this is a skill you have developed through a particular technique. You have also had other interesting and perhaps unusual experiences that include placing your consciousness in a parallel universe, possibly also due to the same technique that was used? And now you are interested in finding out what these experiences are, and how to test them to see whether their happening can be verified scientifically, and ultimately whether something formerly unknown and paranormal is involved.

I would say I can feel the difference between different people without even looking at them or using my eyes. If my wife stood next to me without moving or saying a word and so that I could not hear her breathing nor smell her I am certain I could detect the difference then if it were some stranger. I have noted this before I ever began working with these patterns when I was younger, how I sensed a different feel in the room with my father from my mother. And that is very interesting. That could be tested and might even qualify for the paranormal challenge. Unless the detection and distinguishing of some sort of radiation from individuals is something we can all do, who knows. Such a test would preferrably involve persons you do not know prior, and would need to block out many of the conventional means of identifying a person, such as scent, and vision of course. It seems you have many similar experiences that are related to one another.
One of the observation from my research is an increase in sensitivity of the body, I have found that it can reach degrees of sensitivity that allow for extended perception outside the use of ocular sensing. In other words, detecting information without using your eyes. The complication that would need to be worked out for any paranormal tests of your experiences are that many "things", such as people, or objects, can be detected and identified by virtue of more than one sense of perception. Vision, sound, scent, heat emission, for instance can be all available for an object. So first of all you would have to claim to detect an object by a sense of perception by which such an object is normally not detectable by a human. And secondly, all other senses of perception with which that object could be detected would have to be disabled in you during the time of the test.

Let me apologize to some of the Skeptics if any of you feel that I am spending the time and attention of this claimant. I am curious not only with working toward a test procedure for this claimant but also in learning more about his experiences. Please allow.
I have also observed that all of the senses become more sensitive, from smelling to hearing. I think these will be the easiest to set up tests for. I've had my sense of smell bolstered to the extent that I could never compare prior in life. I would smell many different smells at once and it seemed to almost overstimulate my mind, as many thought would follow. A good example is a public bathroom at work, before amplifying the sense of smell through experimentation I could go into it and barely notice the stink, there where refresheners in in each stall and urinal. No one there seemed offended nor I. After some time into the experimentation, I couldn't bare to go in there, it was like walking into something from a horror film and the stink would follow me down the hall after leaving. It was nauseating. It seems that you speak about having done some kind of technique which brings about all of these interesting experiences that you have. You would have to show that your sense becomes functional beyond the normal capacity of humans in order for that enhanced sense to constitute a paranormal claim. However, if your claim was to have a technique that enhances sensory perception from normal to heightened, perhaps that could be tested for but as an entirely different claim. For instance if a person goes from bad vision to good vision but still within the human range, then this technique of yours would still be of interest, but whether paranormal I do not know.

I experience many things reminiscent of synesthesia. I experience that I can look at a flower from a car, not being in contact with the air surrounding the flower, and I experience feeling a vibration from the flower and all of its molecules which then translates into the perception of scent. I perceive extremely clearly the scents of flowers just by vision and feeling alone. It is wonderful, especially in Spring.
These changes, however, have nothing or very little (based on observation, that is) to do with the developing of infra-red vision, because I was using a different pattern system altogether and have noted that apparently this other system either does not work or is not as effective for such a development.So you have developed different techniques for the development of each different experience. If your techniques do work as suggested, they could potentially be of great interest to many, as long as things are legal and safe here, that is. (Ie. no illegal substances for instance.) I will not ask you to disclose the specifics of these techniques since you have declined from doing so.

There are so many subjective illusions that people can experience, and these can definitely be induced by various means and possibly even by your techniques. However, you are interested in finding out whether your sensory experience correlates with real things in the world. We also need to verify that these perceptions of yours do not come about by ordinary human senses of perception, for instance that you do not simply "feel" the heat that you then say you are "seeing". If your sensory experiences can have you access real world information that is beyond human perception, or in cases where you are using a different sense to access an information that is usually accessible to humans but by other senses while having those other senses disabled, then this could definitely be a paranormal claim.
I am writing a thesis that breaches on this. In it I am following the physical light waves that reflect from the surface of this spinning device, how they enter the eyes, move through the nerves to the visual cortex centers of the brain, and then how these patterns impress upon the cellular structure on down to the molecular and even quantum levels. The thesis begins with well established knowledge at the beginning of the source and goes deeper in to theory as it approaches its destination.From one woo to another, I am definitely interested. :D
I am certain that psychological and physiological changes are occurring, I believe that many psychologists are going to have a hay-day in the future with this discovery after I have gathered sufficient evidence that there is a science to it, be it that it is only emerging in an infantile stage of develop, which is one that is full of confusion and unclarity. Awesome. I would love to know the details of your theory, of course if you could trust me to not disclose it further. Then perhaps we could exchange ideas.
I can use that map to keep track of dreams and results have shown from those who have experimented that using this calendar as a dream map induces longer, clearer, and more consistent dreaming from night to night. I have experienced these things. Years ago while I was falling asleep, I focused my mind to stay awake. The closer I got to falling asleep, the harder it got. It was a very difficult mental exercise. But suddenly I found myself fully conscious in the dream world, just like being in a parallel universe. I could see myself as a non-physical body and could walk around in a world that looked like a copy of ours but with some things changed. I found that my thoughts and emotions would change the surroundings. It was an experience of being fully conscious just as conscious as here but being in another world. I consider it a psychological or mental experience rather than a paranormal one, and I do not particularly think that I was actually in another universe but that I was dreaming while the brain had not disconnected the consciousness as it usually does. Does this sound reminiscent of your experience with the parallel universe? This phenomenon is otherwise known as lucid dreaming. Many people have experienced it to various degrees even without inducing it.

I've had out of the body experiences, but most of them didn't go so far. One of the difficulties is not getting psyched out by the warping (I've termed this sort of experience warping, as in warping into other places), which is a rush, adrenaline blast, and quick unnerving. Most people here probably can't imagine what it is like to jump out of your flesh. I know exactly how much fun it is. I've experienced it. :D
I think there may be a way to prove it, but I simply haven't though of how yet. If you suggest that during this warping experience you are in fact entering another universe, would you suppose that this other universe represents a copy of this one? In such a case, simply arrange to have a room in which another person has placed an object and you will be in an adjacent room where you enter the other universe. You will then simply walk into the other room, not physically but in your conscious mind, and then return to this universe with a description of what was in that room. The other person remains in the room with you to ensure that you do not physically enter the other room. I have heard talk about people doing this kind of lucid dreaming before and being able to describe actual things in this real world that they couldn't have known since they haven't accessed it physically while in the physical human body. I have thought of doing this very experiment myself, but haven't got around to doing so. Let's keep in touch, I want to know the answer.
If I can figure out how to reproduce these results over and over, I think proven it will be far easierTry the method I used, while going asleep focus to stay awake. It is VERY HARD to do but it works. I do not know whether these exercises are safe for the brain, so do be cautious. I have however never experience any harmful side-effects, only enhanced perception and benefits. :D
It is also exciting beyond description, given time I am sure it will be better investigated.What you might not have known is that your experiences are not unique to you. Many people have had these experiences, "including myself".
Out of everything I've experienced I suspect that it will be the easiest to reproduce and test, yes. How did I know.
I continued to study science even after school, which is one of the reasons why I am now working with this. I will be applying the scientific approach and seeing what I can turn up, I have considered many different means of gathering the data and am now working with the ideas I find most interestingAnd I encourage that. Many Skeptics object since they fear that science would be turned into pseudoscience. There are two issues involved here: Often those who are not knowledgeable about the science that is available today, they will use science wrongly, or ascribe for instance a psychological phenomena as a physics phenomena thus being responsible of pseudoscience. But another thing is that we must remember that there are still many things that do exist and do occur that science can not explain yet, which is why it should be encouraged that people try to apply science to further science and to explain what is still unexplained and to discover new, legit phenomena. We must remain open for new discoveries and for the advancement of science. Instead of fighting people down who try to attempt science in unconventional research topics it is better to remind them that what in the end turns out being added as valid contribution to science will be backed up by evidence. Amateur attempts at science won't ruin science itself.
I am very excited and happy to be doing what I do, it is fascinating and rewarding work to partake in.I am also excited about your investigation, I will love to learn more about it as you progress. Thank you for sharing!

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jozen-Bo,
Does your infrared perception cease when you close your eyes?
Yeah, I was looking around with them turning my head all about, moving, and opening and closing them in the dark. That was one of the queues, because when I closed them I couldn't see. I did expect you to have this answer, but I had to ask.

I suspect that it is the photo-receptor cells at work within the back of the eye that undergo a process of changing when exposed to this pattern over time. They are constantly regrowing throughout the day as the process of picking up light and converting it into bio-chemical reactions producing electrons to fire involves these cells getting burnt or damaged with each incoming second to the next in which they are used. Changing the patterns that come in also changes the way they are damaged and thus, the way they regenerate. Given time it is possible that a new pattern arises within the regenerating process itself, as cells are adaptive. I think you just revealed main part of your theory as to how your technique works. And you suppose that this change imparted on the eye then translate changes in the brain and the brain's processing of sensory information? Just curious.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles,
But your experience is that of being totally unable to formulate or carry out a test protocol. :confused:
I fail to see what helpful advice you would be able to provide another claimant.
Unless you suggest they link to your main claim thread and view it as a cutionary tale of what not to do if you genuinely want to test a paranormal ability. Blah.
I am working on it.

[EHocking]

...But another thing is that we must remember that there are still many things that do exist and do occur that science can not explain yet, which is why it should be encouraged that people try to apply science to further science and to explain what is still unexplained and to discover new, legit phenomena.First of all, and this is the error both you and the OP are making, you have to demonstrate an actual phenomenon, before rattling on with "scientific" theories about a phenomenon. We must remain open for new discoveries and for the advancement of science. Instead of fighting people down who try to attempt science in unconventional research topics it is better to remind them that what in the end turns out being added as valid contribution to science will be backed up by evidence...I outlined a simple test to demonstrate back at Post 60 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4531282&postcount=60), and was not surprised to get a similar response to that which we received in other threads that you are familiar with, "I don't have time at the moment, the test/study is "imminent".., but here's what I think the mechanism for this is...."
:rolleyes:

[Ashles]

Ashles,
Blah.
I am working on it.
Sure.
I'm working on my hovercar.
Let's see who reaches their goal first.

[dlorde]

The notion that infrared is 'definitely' not green and that a subject who declares that they see infrared as green would be less credible is neither logical nor scientific. Infrared is a range of the spectrum covering about three orders of magnitude of wavelength. If you could see IR, there's no telling what colour you'd interpret it as. Consider the same claim about visible light - what colour is that? It depends on the wavelength. Without a plausible mechanism to explain how IR can be seen by the unaided eye, making any definite claims about what it must or must not be like is baseless speculation.

Which leads on to just what range of the IR spectrum the OP can detect. Some controlled experiments would be needed to establish what wavelengths this ability is most sensitive to, and at what intensity.

[EDIT - Oops - I missed Philosaur's remarks on IR emission/detection, which seem to rule out true IR perception by the eye for this claim]

Finally, the room and its contents also need to be carefully controlled. Some minerals are strongly fluorescent, e.g. calcite fluoresces red, and many more are weakly fluorescent, so any use of UV illumination would need to make allowance for this. Some of these minerals are also phosphorescent, which makes me wonder whether the concrete in the OP's 'completely dark' room might have contained such a mineral and was perhaps releasing enough visible light to allow detectable contrast to a dark-adapted eye. Some fabrics and plastics can also show fluorescence and/or phosphorescence.

It seems much easier to say "I can see in the dark", than to pin down exactly what that means, and how to test the claim under controlled conditions. Still, I'd like to know what is going on - almost any result would be interesting.

[desertgal]

Never mind.

[Akhenaten]

A quick note of thanks to MRC Hans, Jeff Corey and Philosaur for continuing my education.

[Miss_Kitt]

dlorde -- your comments on weakly fluorescent materials are very valuable. Another thing most people don't think of is that most modern dwellings have things like smoke alarms, controls for stereos, PC boxes, etc. that have little LED indicators on them. When your eyes are truly dark-adapted--and especially if your eyes tend to have a lot of rhodopsin compared to the average--you can see quite well by the light of these LEDs. (I have both abnormally large pupils and apparently high rhodopsin levels, so I have a habit of not turning on lights at night.) If one was in a non-apparent place--say, a smoke alarm up on the ceiling--it might not be apparent what the light source was.

It is even possible to see hue differences--though they don't necessarily match the full-light colors. That is, a brown garment and a blue garment do look different from each other, but they may not look "brown" or "blue" in darkness. It is amply possible to see the fixtures in a bathroom, where walls are, etc. I would suspect that the color of the light source LED(s) would effect what color things appear to be.

Jozen-Bo, can you check to see if there are any LEDs in the rooms where you had your experience? In particular, look for something up near the ceiling, where it would not be apparent when you are looking for a conventional light source (checking the door seals,etc.) at night.

I can attest that a smoke detector in the bedroom can cast enough light for eyes, when fully adapted, to use to navigate not just in that room but also in the bathroom--especially if the bathroom has mirrors.

Forgive the comments from anecdote, but once I thought of this possibility I wanted to raise it. I know that other people--my husband and older daughter, for instance--say that they cannot see a thing when I am walking around quite comfortably, avoiding laundry baskets on the floor and washing my hands at the sink. So clearly the level of night vision that occurs in humans can differ substantially.

Just my thoughts, Miss Kitt

[Moochie]

Interesting thread. Rubbish, of course, but interesting rubbish.

Oh, and it's nice to see infrequent posters adding their knowledge and thoughts. Keep it up!


M.

[shep]

A quick note of thanks to MRC Hans, Jeff Corey and Philosaur for continuing my education.

Seconded! Fascinating stuff.
Sorry eyes, you're not up to the job.

If you could see IR, there's no telling what colour you'd interpret it as. Consider the same claim about visible light - what colour is that? It depends on the wavelength. Without a plausible mechanism to explain how IR can be seen by the unaided eye, making any definite claims about what it must or must not be like is baseless speculation.

Of course, this is true. VFF is responding to my original suspicion that the experience of the claimant seems close to the kinds of thermal images we see in the movies.. perhaps my comment was flippant, but I was trying to tie it into something like aural-visual synesthesia, where our brain can visually represent aural input.

Jozen-Bo has now confirmed that shutting the eyes stops the vision. To be honest, I can't remember if the cases in Sacks' book continued visual perception of music when their eyes were shut (not all the cases had the visual synesthesia component in the first place) but previous posters have succintly ruled out the eyes as the actual organ that is sensing any infrared light.

I agree that if Jozen-Bo is serious, a claim of "I can visually perceive my surroundings with no visible light in the room" is going to be a lot easier to prove without speculating on the mechanics of it at the same time.

[Earthborn]

The colored gels are blocking particular wavelengths of visible light to produce changes in color which I believe are falsely attributed as being "infrared" colors.You probably should read the FAQ (http://amasci.com/amateur/irgogg2.html#faq) which answers the commonly heard argument that it isn't really infrared.

Again, the colored gels are altering "visible" light, but are not rendering the unseen (infrared wavelengths) into the seen (visible spectrum.)They're not converting anything. They block everything except very near infrared light, so if it is bright enough it is all you can see. It is not heat vision either, but it is infrared light.

If we can exclude the possibilities that Jozen-Bo sees some very weak normal light, or some weakly fluorescent materials, perhaps we should wonder whether there is a bright near-infrared light source in Jozen-Bo's house, which might be visible to many people. See Bill Beaty's idea for making an IR floodlight.

To test whether Jozen-Bo really has infrared vision, it might be best to ask him/her to tell whether an infrared light source is on or off. It also means that it is possible to test sources producing different wavelengths and different brightness, so measure exactly the what this claim amounts to and what its limits are.

[Dan O.]

I agree that if Jozen-Bo is serious, a claim of "I can visually perceive my surroundings with no visible light in the room" is going to be a lot easier to prove without speculating on the mechanics of it at the same time.

Hey, I was going to use that :)


I decided to check out how well my vision still works in the dark. I have a room that should be completely isolated form all external light sources by 2 sequential doors. In the inner room, there was no apparent source of light yet after a short period to adapt to the dark, my dark sweatshirt appeared darker against the dark walls. I could not see my hands but I could shield my eyes with them and the room got darker and I could not distinguish the sweatshirt behind my hand.

My conclusion is that there must still be some light in this room but how can the source be identified?

Florescent lamps continue to glow after they have been turned off and may glow on their own near a strong EM source such as electric power lines or RF transmitters. There are florescent lamps in the outer room but the one lamp in this room is incandescent because the fixture gets too hot for current compact florescent bulbs.

Florescent dies in paints, tiles or phosphates from laundry detergent could emit light if excited by another energy source (Radon perhaps, that would be scary).


What is the luminesces required for human perception and what technique could be suitable for measuring this? A time exposure of a test target with a digital camera may show something but calibration could be tricky.

[Jeff Corey]

As little as 9 photons can produce a visual response in a human.

[Jeff Corey]

SorryHecht, Shlaer and Pirenne in 1942.

[Uncayimmy]

And I encourage that. Many Skeptics object since they fear that science would be turned into pseudoscience. There are two issues involved here: Often those who are not knowledgeable about the science that is available today, they will use science wrongly, or ascribe for instance a psychological phenomena as a physics phenomena thus being responsible of pseudoscience. But another thing is that we must remember that there are still many things that do exist and do occur that science can not explain yet, which is why it should be encouraged that people try to apply science to further science and to explain what is still unexplained and to discover new, legit phenomena. We must remain open for new discoveries and for the advancement of science. Instead of fighting people down who try to attempt science in unconventional research topics it is better to remind them that what in the end turns out being added as valid contribution to science will be backed up by evidence. Amateur attempts at science won't ruin science itself.

Sounds good, but it's a bunch of nonsense. Skeptics don't "fear" pseudoscience. They see it every day and try to educate people about it. Skeptics don't discourage anyone approaching "unconventional" research topics. What they do is discourage people from straying from the scientific method.

It just so happens that the wackier the premise, the farther away from the scientific method researchers tend to stray. Your thread was a classic example. Skeptics approach all ideas with the eyes wide open, but with that comes the responsibility of seeing things as they are, not as we wish them to be.

[Jeff Corey]

Edited for Rule 12. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Dan O.]

SorryHecht, Shlaer and Pirenne in 1942.

Thanks Jeff.

"one quantum must be absorbed by each of 5 to 14 rods in the retina." It looks like the rods themselves are sensitive to individual photons and some secondary process is eliminating the noise due to random firing.

I'm going to add "Quantum receptors" to my bio. :)

[LONGTABBER PE]

To test whether Jozen-Bo really has infrared vision, it might be best to ask him/her to tell whether an infrared light source is on or off. It also means that it is possible to test sources producing different wavelengths and different brightness, so measure exactly the what this claim amounts to and what its limits are.

Well, I thought I would chime in just because as a PE, thermography from MRI level down to regular PdM is what I do and I'm a certifying authority for Certifications ( FLIR and Fluke).

He doesnt have the ability. The only known animal that can see in the IR/UV spectrum is a goldfish.

"Green" is used to show pictures on NV equipment because green is the color humans see the most in- it can be customized to fit any color you want. ( high end imagers will do this)

The question is ( based on what I'm reading ) is acgtually 2 fold but people who dont work in thermography dont often realize that these are 2 different things and never the twain shall meet.

1) is the claim that the individual can see the EMITTED IR spectrum that all matter above absolute zero has? ( such as imagers do)

2) is the claim that the person has some eye/brain whatever that allows him to see in low light conditions ( such as IR radiation shining on something similar to night vision?)

#1 is impossible so thats out before we start

#2 is easy to establish by putting the subject in a true "dark room" and get a low end thermal imager ( not night vision) and let him describe whats there.

You will find out pretty quick.

[Jeff Corey]

Don't some snakes, like rattlers, have IR vision?

[Modified]

Don't some snakes, like rattlers, have IR vision?

Yes, but not through their eyes. It is a separate organ.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Don't some snakes, like rattlers, have IR vision?

No but this is where specific words have specific meanings that often clash with general usage.

Those animals "sense" IR ( as in radiated HEAT, not necessarily "light") much like your hand over a stove not as in seeing it with their eyes.

Theres also the "colors of light" that factor into it as well. ( light has its own heat band associated by color)

Without going into a long ( and boring) talk on imaging and such- in layman's english.

"Heat" is a relative measurement based on black body radiation. ( all matter emits energy at some rate unless its molecules are at zero potential) ( Plank and such) and light emits "heat" in a different spectra.

( imagine a streetlight- you are close, you can "feel" it, you are a little further- you can see the corona and way far away- you just see the "dot")

Thermal imaging can detect and measure all of these together or independantly.

Its also like the candle in the mirror. The candle has a heat signature- the reflection in the mirror doesnt.

Where people make the common error is that thermal imaging and IR imaging are not the same.

IR imaging ( night vision) is emitted light ( invisible to the eye in the low IR spectrum) and the device makes it look like a flashlight. ( like a standard IR LED game cam

Then you have IR devices ( later generations) that read the emitted "color of light" emissions from a "thing" ( NV that "sees" in the dark)- they arent measuring "heat" as in thermal but the color of the light emitted as a sidebar to the hear. They can "qualify" the presence of an emitter but not quantify the heat. They also cannot differentiate between emitted,radiant or reflected heat.

The only device that can is the thermal imager ( true thermal imaging device )

Then to see "inside" you need the highest level which is MRI.

Hope that helps- thats pretty generic and fit for general conversation but not wholly accurate technically.

[Jeff Corey]

Point taken - it's sensing, but not vision. However, it is the case that many species of insects have true UV vision.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Point taken - it's sensing, but not vision. However, it is the case that many species of insects have true UV vision.

Probably ( so I've been told) but thats way outside my area of expertise and I'm not qualified to comment on insects.

I do some UV stuff on the process side for color matching, flaw detection etc but the majority of my experience is in thermal imaging.

[Moochie]

Some great posts here, methinks. I'm a layman, so it's great to have things explained in layman's terms. Thank you LONGTABBER et al.

This is one of the compelling reasons to be here.


M.

[Akhenaten]

Yes, but not through their eyes. It is a separate organ.


No but this is where specific words have specific meanings that often clash with general usage.

Those animals "sense" IR ( as in radiated HEAT, not necessarily "light") much like your hand over a stove not as in seeing it with their eyes.

Theres also the "colors of light" that factor into it as well. ( light has its own heat band associated by color)

Without going into a long ( and boring) talk on imaging and such- in layman's english.

"Heat" is a relative measurement based on black body radiation. ( all matter emits energy at some rate unless its molecules are at zero potential) ( Plank and such) and light emits "heat" in a different spectra.

( imagine a streetlight- you are close, you can "feel" it, you are a little further- you can see the corona and way far away- you just see the "dot")

Thermal imaging can detect and measure all of these together or independantly.

Its also like the candle in the mirror. The candle has a heat signature- the reflection in the mirror doesnt.

Where people make the common error is that thermal imaging and IR imaging are not the same.

IR imaging ( night vision) is emitted light ( invisible to the eye in the low IR spectrum) and the device makes it look like a flashlight. ( like a standard IR LED game cam

Then you have IR devices ( later generations) that read the emitted "color of light" emissions from a "thing" ( NV that "sees" in the dark)- they arent measuring "heat" as in thermal but the color of the light emitted as a sidebar to the hear. They can "qualify" the presence of an emitter but not quantify the heat. They also cannot differentiate between emitted,radiant or reflected heat.

The only device that can is the thermal imager ( true thermal imaging device )

Then to see "inside" you need the highest level which is MRI.

Hope that helps- thats pretty generic and fit for general conversation but not wholly accurate technically.


Second what Moochie said. Thanks guys.

May I ask a bit more about the snakes?

I know that we are unable to sense "radiated cold" and I understand the floor temperature concept which makes IR vision impossible for us. How do these limitations affect the snakes that use IR?

[Toke]

How do these limitations affect the snakes that use IR?

An uneducated guess would be that snake body temperature varies. And that the sense organs are only usefull at nighttime, where a mouse would be hotter than both snake and ground.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Second what Moochie said. Thanks guys.

May I ask a bit more about the snakes?

I know that we are unable to sense "radiated cold" and I understand the floor temperature concept which makes IR vision impossible for us. How do these limitations affect the snakes that use IR?

I'm not a snake expert but let me try to answer you as best I can from an engineering standpoint.

"cold" doesnt exist- its a relative perception tied to heat. "Heat" is measured from absolute zero ( all molecular action and energy emission is literally zero)

( this is why an ice cube has a "heat signature" even tho its "cold" and why we thermally scan ice cream at about -26 to see how "hot" it is)

Cold blooded animals have the same background reading as what they are sitting on. ( we use them as illustrations) Their "heat" is whatever they are sitting on.

Snakes have a "pit" that basically serves as a thermoconductive "sensor" that detects heat higher than background. ( your body at 98.6 is normally "hot" compared to background ambient)

The snake is striking at the hottest object. ( I dont know how a snake knows)

Our eyes are a visual medium ( prisms and such) and dont "see" or "detect" heat in any spectrum. We "see" reflections from LIGHT ( which has its own color band and spectrum)

For example- I can take a motor in total black ( no visible light at all) and read its signature with a FLIR and it wont change if its in a fully lighted pump room.( the imager doesnt see "light" unless I set it that way)

I can bathe that same motor with 100 IR led's and it wont change its signature. ( but it would show up on NV equipment)

I can also put a heat lamp on it ( warming the skin) and remove the reflected heat and still tell you the motor temp.

Hope that helps a bit

[Dan O.]

Hope that helps a bit

It seems that you are trying to say that radiant heat is some other form of energy different than the electromagnetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum) we see as light.

[LONGTABBER PE]

It seems that you are trying to say that radiant heat is some other form of energy different than the electromagnetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum) we see as light.

No, thats not what I said

"energy" is energy and then its a matter of what characteristic and then what band it is being measured against. Many of them cross over.

Technically ( and quite literally) all energy is in an EM band of some description.

They are measured from Mev down to Fev

Then its a matter of characteristics and EMF

[Akhenaten]

I'm not a snake expert but let me try to answer you as best I can from an engineering standpoint.

"cold" doesnt exist- its a relative perception tied to heat. "Heat" is measured from absolute zero ( all molecular action and energy emission is literally zero)

( this is why an ice cube has a "heat signature" even tho its "cold" and why we thermally scan ice cream at about -26 to see how "hot" it is)

Cold blooded animals have the same background reading as what they are sitting on. ( we use them as illustrations) Their "heat" is whatever they are sitting on.

Snakes have a "pit" that basically serves as a thermoconductive "sensor" that detects heat higher than background. ( your body at 98.6 is normally "hot" compared to background ambient)

The snake is striking at the hottest object. ( I dont know how a snake knows)

Our eyes are a visual medium ( prisms and such) and dont "see" or "detect" heat in any spectrum. We "see" reflections from LIGHT ( which has its own color band and spectrum)

For example- I can take a motor in total black ( no visible light at all) and read its signature with a FLIR and it wont change if its in a fully lighted pump room.( the imager doesnt see "light" unless I set it that way)

I can bathe that same motor with 100 IR led's and it wont change its signature. ( but it would show up on NV equipment)

I can also put a heat lamp on it ( warming the skin) and remove the reflected heat and still tell you the motor temp.

Hope that helps a bit


It does, as does Toke's response, which I wanted to guess at myself. As it happens, I'm an ex AIrcraft Artificer, so I appreciate the engineering slant on the biologic stuff. :)

[Jeff Corey]

Snakes have a "pit" that basically serves as a thermoconductive "sensor" that detects heat higher than background. ( your body at 98.6 is normally "hot" compared to background ambient)

The snake is striking at the hottest object. ( I dont know how a snake knows)



The pit is like the precursor of our eye, before lenses were evolved. The pit functions as a pinhole camera. The heat is concentrated in the direction opposite to the source on the receptors inside the pit. So it's a bit like our inverted retina, without a lens to invert it. This gives the snake cues about the location of the heat source.

[Toke]

MRC Hans pointed out the basic problem with mammals and heat vision, that the body temperature kind of gets in the way. The body/camera emits its own radiation.

Switchsboard fotografy is a great idea*, and I have a camera onboard for the purpose.
Downside is that I have no idea of how to use it.
I can point it at something and press the button, then load the file to a computer.
It will show a blurry image with some temperature codes/colors I can´t trust. There is only guesswork to tell me what the hotters parts are.

The idea was to save the cost of an "expert" with propper equipment.


*Bad connections will be warmer that good ones.

[Akhenaten]

The pit is like the precursor of our eye, before lenses were evolved. The pit functions as a pinhole camera. The heat is concentrated in the direction opposite to the source on the receptors inside the pit. So it's a bit like our inverted retina, without a lens to invert it. This gives the snake cues about the location of the heat source.


Understood and thank you. This seems like it would be a big advantage that evolution would select for, so I'm surprised that only the Crotalinae have this feature. I do understand that this organ would still only work for the cold-blooded.

I didn't suddenly get teh smart - I wiki cheated to get the species name, and will continue research, since I come from a continent where all the snakes go to bed at night and it never occurred to me that it would be otherwise.

Is it possible that the development of this abilty in a more recent line of reptiles (I think. They appear Laurasian by their current distribution?) can be extrapolated as some reptiles evolving to be more endothermic than they were at the time of the dinosaurs?


Please don't waste too much effort on me here. I don't think I even know enough to ask the right questions.


Cheers

[Akhenaten]

MRC Hans pointed out the basic problem with mammals and heat vision, that the body temperature kind of gets in the way. The body/camera emits its own radiation.

Switchsboard fotografy is a great idea*, and I have a camera onboard for the purpose.
Downside is that I have no idea of how to use it.
I can point it at something and press the button, then load the file to a computer.
It will show a blurry image with some temperature codes/colors I can´t trust. There is only guesswork to tell me what the hotters parts are.

The idea was to save the cost of an "expert" with propper equipment.


*Bad connections will be warmer that good ones.


Yup, I've seen heat-maps of all kinds of electrical/electronic equipment used to find the hot spots. Much better than waiting for the smoke.

This brought to mind the way we use the other end of the visible spectrum to render flourescent dyes visible in UV light to perform crack detection, etc.

It seems much better to have all these clever machines than to have pits in our heads and permanently cold fingers and toes. ;)

[TSR]

Yup, I've seen heat-maps of all kinds of electrical/electronic equipment used to find the hot spots. Much better than waiting for the smoke.



Never wait for the smoke -- that's what makes it all work. If you let the smoke escape, it won't work anymore



It seems much better to have all these clever machines than to have pits in our heads and permanently cold fingers and toes. ;)



Dunno about pits, but kitkat has permanently cold toes -- I can testify that they are *frigid* when zie tries to use me to warm them in the middle of the night. Nothing to do then but increase blood flow and respiration....

[Akhenaten]

Dunno about pits, but kitkat has permanently cold toes -- I can testify that they are *frigid* when zie tries to use me to warm them in the middle of the night. Nothing to do then but increase blood flow and respiration....


I wonder if that would show up better with FLIR or NVG. ;)

[TSR]

I wonder if that would show up better with FLIR or NVG. ;)

At that point, FLIRting is kinda redundant, and it's much more fun to feel our way around...

[Toke]

This brought to mind the way we use the other end of the visible spectrum to render flourescent dyes visible in UV light to perform crack detection, etc.

Ships have a less sofisticated version.
It´s 3 spraycans, dye, cleaner, and developer.
Spray with red dye, clean, and apply the developer a white powder.
Craks will then appear in red.

I was wondering about temperature codes for light.
Visible light stop around the temperature of red steel, more visible in darkness.

Could a mammal be able to see light/heat in frequencies/temperatures ranging from red steel down to body temperature, and the frequencies below.
The body temperature provide a nice calibration basis for the eyes.

I know it has not happened, but that could be due to some evolutional blind alley. (And lack of usefulness for the higher temperatures)
It could also be a technical problem, maybe it is not possible to make a sensor that blocks the range of frequencies around body temperature.

Being able to see the temperatures from bodytemperature and down would be of use at nighttime.

[MattusMaximus]

As little as 9 photons can produce a visual response in a human.

Really? Do you have a link on this?

[Jeff Corey]

It was in post 158, but here's a link. http://jgp.rupress.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/6/819

[Miss_Kitt]

Akhnaten -- I suspect you have at least some nocturnal snakes in Oz. Deserts aren't too hospitable for long at night for exotherms, because they get cold quickly--but I suspect you have some rainforest snakes that are night hunters.

Many snakes are not so much nocturnal as crepuscular: They are most active around dawn and dusk, but not at midday or middle of the night. It's a happy medium between managing too much body temp adjustment, but keeping the thermal-sensing advantage (prey still stand out against background nicely).

All or nearly all U.S. poisonous snakes have pits. (I seem to recall that coral snakes don't, but I'm not sure and not currently able to check that.) Rattlesnakes, sidewinders, cottonmouths, copperheads--they're all those pretty, triangule-headed, pitted snakes. So it seems so odd to me that Australia, with such a plethora of highly venomous snakes, doesn't have pit vipers of any sort!!

OT for other Western WA state folks: Check out the Serpentarium in Monroe! Went with my kid's school field trip, it's wonderful. Green mamba, black mamba, horned viper, 3 kinds of rattler, pythons, an anaconda, emerald viper, cottonmouth, plus lots of lizards and tortoises. Some are even pettable! (Note: a cornsnake burrowing for warmth into your armpit with its skinny nose is very tickle-y!) I recommend it highly.

[Akhenaten]

Akhnaten -- I suspect you have at least some nocturnal snakes in Oz. Deserts aren't too hospitable for long at night for exotherms, because they get cold quickly--but I suspect you have some rainforest snakes that are night hunters.

Many snakes are not so much nocturnal as crepuscular: They are most active around dawn and dusk, but not at midday or middle of the night. It's a happy medium between managing too much body temp adjustment, but keeping the thermal-sensing advantage (prey still stand out against background nicely).

All or nearly all U.S. poisonous snakes have pits. (I seem to recall that coral snakes don't, but I'm not sure and not currently able to check that.) Rattlesnakes, sidewinders, cottonmouths, copperheads--they're all those pretty, triangule-headed, pitted snakes. So it seems so odd to me that Australia, with such a plethora of highly venomous snakes, doesn't have pit vipers of any sort!!

OT for other Western WA state folks: Check out the Serpentarium in Monroe! Went with my kid's school field trip, it's wonderful. Green mamba, black mamba, horned viper, 3 kinds of rattler, pythons, an anaconda, emerald viper, cottonmouth, plus lots of lizards and tortoises. Some are even pettable! (Note: a cornsnake burrowing for warmth into your armpit with its skinny nose is very tickle-y!) I recommend it highly.


You are correct as always, Ma'am, and I'm busted for hyperbole. I ought to have said "geographical area" instead of "continent". :)

I used a poor choice of words to say that pit vipers don't seem to have appeared on Gondwana, and that as a resident this is pleasing to me.

Yes, we do have nocturnal Joe Blakes in Australia, but fortunately it's not the bitey ones like the Taipan and his mates.


Thanks for your answer, Dudette.

[Miss_Kitt]

I used a poor choice of words to say that pit vipers don't seem to have appeared on Gondwana, and that as a resident this is pleasing to me.

Yes, we do have nocturnal Joe Blakes in Australia, but fortunately it's not the bitey ones like the Taipan and his mates...

I would think anytime anything venomous missed Australia it would be cause for celebration! What with the snakes, spiders, seashells, octopi, jellyfish, and male platypus to worry about...

BTW, thanks for encouraging me to read up a bit more on venomous snakes: I now know that the bushmaster can be up to 3.65 meters (12 ft) in length; and that boomslangs have rear fangs, which is why they are less likely to inflict deadly bites (people are better able to avoid strikes). Snakes are sooooo cool, it's always fun to see what has been learned since last time I checked.

--MK

[Soapy Sam]

Snakes are not cool. They're just exothermic.

[Miss_Kitt]

To get back on-topic: Jozen-Bo, did you have a chance to look at the possibility of LED or similar very low-light emitters in the environment??

Thanks, MK

[Jozen-Bo]

To get back on-topic: Jozen-Bo, did you have a chance to look at the possibility of LED or similar very low-light emitters in the environment??

Thanks, MK

In the hall the only possible source I can think of would be at the base of the two bedroom doors, that an extremely low amount of light got through, though those rooms where also shut of from light sources and very dark. Plus, the door seal dipped, so if any light got through, it would be such a small amount that it wouldn't do much at all. Other then that, I can think of no other possible source. Also, when I stepped into the bathroom, at this point I can not think of a single source at all. It might be helpful if I draw up a map of this area.

I'll do that soon, though for now I would like to give an idea of the Red and the Blue which I saw, which where extremely low shades, though even lower shades can appear illuminated in contrast to even lower shades next to them. Normally, we'd see these colors and think they are simply black, because the contrast of brightness around them drowns out the sensation of the color, here is an example:

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk180/Jozen-Bo/Shadesofblueandred.jpg

The dots represent that range at which I was seeing the Red and the Blue, which appear almost black when contrasted to a bright background. I drew a little picture from my perception as I remember it, though I did it without concern for artistic detail, just enough to get the idea across. Also, I believe the shades were even darker then I made them in the picture below, and the corners not nearly as bright. Still, this helps to convey the sensation as it was:

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk180/Jozen-Bo/Infra-Red.jpg

It's not perfect, but close enough to at least convey what it was like to see. I repeat, there was no reliable source of light in the hall and absolutely none in the bathroom, and I saw BETTER when I was in the bathroom. This simply doesn't make sense, which leaves me asking and seeking to understand what happened.

If you can't see anything in the picture, try letting your eyes adjust over about 1 minute or so, the details should become easier to distinguish. If this doesn't working, try making your room dark or try centering the picture and cover any white screen background with your hands. If you do this right you'll see what is going on in that picture. I just tested this myself and found that by covering the white on my monitor the details of the picture become far easier to determine.

[Miss_Kitt]

Jozen-Bo: Forgive me persisting, but instead of "thinking of" light sources, could you actually go to the place this event occurred, and do a detailed visual inspection of all the walls, ceilings, electronics on/in the furniture, etc.? My night-time travels are fueled by the single dot LED of a smoke detector, which is on one slope of the vaulted ceiling in the bedroom; since this means the light faces 'away' from the bathroom door, you'd think it could not provide appreciable light in that direction, but experience shows that it does. I also see better in the bathroom, but I think that's because of the mirrors; also, the walls are closer together, so I don't have to look as far to see them.

I'm persisting on this because I have experienced the phenomenon, and the confusion of "where is the light coming from"?--so I know its source is extremely non-obvious. (Okay, I confess, it was almost two weeks before I figured it out. Color me clueless, okay?) As several posters have shown, studies indicate that a truly dark-adapted eye is incredibly sensitive to light! There may even be things that do not appear to be emitting light that do so, very faintly.

The picture above looks like a pretty good rendition! All cats are not gray after midnight, they're subtly hued but different.

Best wishes, MK

[Morrigan]

This thread has taught me several things, not least of which is that platypi are venomous. :eye-poppi Awesome.

[Jozen-Bo]

Last night I could make out an image on that picture above, and when I followed my own advice I could see the hand and door behind it very easily. Now it is day time and I can't see a thing, only blackness. Too much light in the room at this moment. I will again check it this night to see if the image reappears when the circumstances are right.

When you can see in that picture, then you'll get a good idea what the experience was like. I could very easily navigate when seeing as I did then. If you painted things on the wall, I think it would be far more difficult to determine what they are then if you attached 3-d objects to the wall. I'll make a map soon, it might be helpful.

It isn't possible for me to get back to that place, for beginners I don't live there anymore and I don't live in that city anymore. It would take too much time and effort, besides I remember that hall and the apartment layout with ease. I was making house plans for an architectural firm at the time and my schooling is in architectural design work. Currently I am working as a technician, it makes more sense when the other field is almost dead. Basically this is saying that I pay more attention to the interior and exterior details of a building then people normally would, my memory of the place serves so well that it is almost pointless that I return to the place. I'll make a map (using Microsoft Paint- it won't be the same quality that I would produce for a firm using a professional program such as Autocad 2009 or CATIA V5).

The hall was alway empty. We kept nothing in it, not even a picture on the wall. They where painted white. Not much to inspect. The bathroom had not electronic device that was on. It did have the things you'd typically find of a bathroom, and the walls where also white, though there was a moisture deposit in one of the corners. This deposit is unlikely a source, because if it was it would have stood out in my experience, which it didn't. The smoke detector was in the kitchen, far away from this hall. The only possible source I can think of would be at the door seals, though the rooms behind them were also dark and these only apply to the hall, the bathroom being isolated altogether.

[Akhenaten]

G'day mate. I hope you don't mind us keeping the thread warm for you. I understood that you needed time with the wheel to get your eyes attuned for the task, so gathering a little background in the interem seemed like a useful way to pass the time. Thanks for your tolerance.

And I see you've been busy! Kewl. I love your graphics. :)



In the hall the only possible source I can think of would be at the base of the two bedroom doors, that an extremely low amount of light got through, though those rooms where also shut of from light sources and very dark. Plus, the door seal dipped, so if any light got through, it would be such a small amount that it wouldn't do much at all. Other then that, I can think of no other possible source. Also, when I stepped into the bathroom, at this point I can not think of a single source at all. It might be helpful if I draw up a map of this area.


With what I've learned here, it's really seeming to me that your ability is to see in ultra-low light, rather than infra-red. I think I've read some pretty convincing evidence that infra-red is always going to be impossible for us warm-bloods. Any thoughts?



I'll do that soon, though for now I would like to give an idea of the Red and the Blue which I saw, which where extremely low shades, though even lower shades can appear illuminated in contrast to even lower shades next to them. Normally, we'd see these colors and think they are simply black, because the contrast of brightness around them drowns out the sensation of the color, here is an example:

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk180/Jozen-Bo/Shadesofblueandred.jpg

The dots represent that range at which I was seeing the Red and the Blue, which appear almost black when contrasted to a bright background.


I'm good with that. I guess my vision might be about typical then, or at least the colours above are exactly as you describe them. I think I can detect a difference in colour between the dotted bit of the blue strip and the dotted bit of the red strip, but I couldn't tell you what those colours were.



I drew a little picture from my perception as I remember it, though I did it without concern for artistic detail, just enough to get the idea across. Also, I believe the shades were even darker then I made them in the picture below, and the corners not nearly as bright. Still, this helps to convey the sensation as it was:




http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk180/Jozen-Bo/Infra-Red.jpg

It's not perfect, but close enough to at least convey what it was like to see. I repeat, there was no reliable source of light in the hall and absolutely none in the bathroom, and I saw BETTER when I was in the bathroom. This simply doesn't make sense, which leaves me asking and seeking to understand what happened.


I reckon you do a terrific job of drawing just the right picture to illustrate your point. It's a fine ability to have and I'm envious.



If you can't see anything in the picture, try letting your eyes adjust over about 1 minute or so, the details should become easier to distinguish. If this doesn't working, try making your room dark or try centering the picture and cover any white screen background with your hands. If you do this right you'll see what is going on in that picture. I just tested this myself and found that by covering the white on my monitor the details of the picture become far easier to determine.


No problemo for me to see the picture, and it conveys to me rather well what you are describing.

What it reminds me of is something that my own vision creates occasionally, called an afterimage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterimage).

Do you think this phenomenon could be related in some way to your ability?


Again, my apologies for getting off-topic a bit, and I promise that it was just to fill in while you were busy. Thanks for staying with us me.



ETA: Hmm. Your linkies don't be pictures when I quote them. I are dum, but someone will tell me why this is so, won't they?

[Jozen-Bo]

Here is a map:


http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk180/Jozen-Bo/TheHallway.jpg

If you stand in the hall in the day time and close all the doors you can see a little light coming through the door seal's coming from the bedrooms. However, if you close the curtains of one and roll down the metal screen of the other no light comes through. I had both the curtains closed and the roll down screen rolled down at the time, and it was night. The dining room also has a roll down screen to its windows. As you can see, there are no windows in the hallway nor the bathroom and the bathroom is isolated from any source.

The hallway's floor dips a little from every other room next to it; the bathroom, dining room, and both bedrooms. This is shown in the picture above the rudimentary floor plan I drew. If you have a closet in your home and it is next to a room with windows, this might be comparable, though you'd have close your curtains from that room and then go into the closet at night, then this would be possibly comparable to the hallway. The bathroom itself is cut off from even that possibility. This ought to help a little.

[Akhenaten]

<snip for brevity>

I could very easily navigate when seeing as I did then.

<ditto>




Good-oh. I read this after I typed my last post and it seems to answer my afterimage question. There's no way you could use that to navigate.

[Jozen-Bo]

G'day mate. I hope you don't mind us keeping the thread warm for you. I understood that you needed time with the wheel to get your eyes attuned for the task, so gathering a little background in the interem seemed like a useful way to pass the time. Thanks for your tolerance.

And I see you've been busy! Kewl. I love your graphics. :)

Thanks for keeping the thread warm, I have read up on some interesting material myself as I got myself caught up. I have been busy and will be busier this month as I HAVE to find a new place to move to before my contract expires, I am hoping to set up a lab in my next place, but that depends if its just a in between apartment or not.


With what I've learned here, it's really seeming to me that your ability is to see in ultra-low light, rather than infra-red. I think I've read some pretty convincing evidence that infra-red is always going to be impossible for us warm-bloods. Any thoughts?

While it is a possible explanation, I am not fully convinced that it is impossible for warm-blooded creatures to possess infra-vision. For beginners, when the warmth is being radiated, most of the illumination is moving away from the source, the warmth of the creature. That it is moving away from the creature would not make it interfere. The amount that moves sideways is unlikely going to be strong enough to interfere enough to compromise the sense, though it might reduce it some.

We'd need to stay focused on the eyes themselves. Would the eye produce enough heat to interfere? It is a round organ, so this would reduce illumination from coming in sideways and the electromagnetic waves that radiated out from the eyeball would be moving away from and not towards the generating source. I am not convinced that would be enough to interfere. Setting up a test for this would be the best way to determine, so far I am reading deductions based on reason, though as anyone here ought to know, human deductions fall prone to oversights and are fallible.

If it is infra-red vision, then I would say I am only seeing a tiny range of it, though enough to determine where I am in a given place. If it is low-light vision, then where is the light coming from, most especially in the bathroom?

I'm good with that. I guess my vision might be about typical then, or at least the colours above are exactly as you describe them. I think I can detect a difference in colour between the dotted bit of the blue strip and the dotted bit of the red strip, but I couldn't tell you what those colours were.

The differences within those dotted regions stand out much more without high amounts of illumination, if you darken the room and blot out the whiteness of the monitor around them, you'll see the differences much more clearly.

I reckon you do a terrific job of drawing just the right picture to illustrate your point. It's a fine ability to have and I'm envious.

I did my best to provide a map given that I used the most basic drawing program available and only 5 minutes. If it is enough to illustrate the point then it fulfilled its purpose. I don't have any professional drawing programs installed into my computer, I had to make do with what I have. I do enjoy graphics!

No problemo for me to see the picture, and it conveys to me rather well what you are describing.

What it reminds me of is something that my own vision creates occasionally, called an afterimage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterimage).

Do you think this phenomenon could be related in some way to your ability?

I am familiar with afterimages, I learned about them when studying tantra. There is a lot of similarity in the perception, though I ruled out the possibility because I would have to have seen the room in light before the afterimage would set in. Also, the afterimage would have stayed the same even after I turned my head right, left, up, and down, which it didn't. When I turned my head and eyes the image changed accordingly. When I went into the bathroom I went from seeing the hall to seeing the bathroom. This wouldn't happen in the case of it being an afterimage.

Again, my apologies for getting off-topic a bit, and I promise that it was just to fill in while you were busy. Thanks for staying with us me.

Thanks again!

No problem, I think I will respond to any questions I missed and some of the more valid responses that strike at interesting points, while avoiding the opinions. I find this place to be very interesting and I find the critical process of thinking to be very useful. It is good to be here.


Best Regards,
Jozen-Bo
:)

[Jozen-Bo]

He doesnt have the ability. The only known animal that can see in the IR/UV spectrum is a goldfish.

1) is the claim that the individual can see the EMITTED IR spectrum that all matter above absolute zero has? ( such as imagers do)

2) is the claim that the person has some eye/brain whatever that allows him to see in low light conditions ( such as IR radiation shining on something similar to night vision?)

#1 is impossible so thats out before we start

#2 is easy to establish by putting the subject in a true "dark room" and get a low end thermal imager ( not night vision) and let him describe whats there.

You will find out pretty quick.

This is good to hear, because it strengthens the case of this being abnormal (or paranormal if you prefer). It is impossible and you claim I don't have it. Then, given that I can demonstrate otherwise, this would clearly not be normal. Regarding #1, I am not saying I can see ALL the emitted IR, I don't know enough to determine how much of it I am picking up or if that is even the case to begin with. If I am picking it up, then I would say I am barely seeing any of it, though with that tiny bit I am able to determine the features of my immediate surroundings. Considering your background, I would be disappointed if you said it was possible and that there are known cases or such. Thanks!

[Akhenaten]

@ Jozen-Bo

Thank you for a very comprehensive response. Answered all my questions for now, and it was a pleasure to read.

Kudos!

[Cuddles]

Last night I could make out an image on that picture above, and when I followed my own advice I could see the hand and door behind it very easily. Now it is day time and I can't see a thing, only blackness. Too much light in the room at this moment.

It's currently midday, almost exactly, on a fairly sunny day and I'm in a building that's made mainly out of windows. I can see an image in that picture with no trouble at all. On the colour strips you posted earlier, every square except the furthest left on each one is clearly not black. Far from having extraordinary vision, I would suggest your vision isn't particularly good at all.

[Akhenaten]

It's currently midday, almost exactly, on a fairly sunny day and I'm in a building that's made mainly out of windows. I can see an image in that picture with no trouble at all. On the colour strips you posted earlier, every square except the furthest left on each one is clearly not black. Far from having extraordinary vision, I would suggest your vision isn't particularly good at all.


Reading this started me worrying a bit, since the way Jozen-bo described the visibility of the colours was exactly as I was seeing it. So I had another look, and tonight I can quite clearly colour in all but the left-most boxes myself. I also seem to be able to see the picture more clearly, particularly the bright edges. Conditions of ambient light, temperature, positioning etc have been the same for both "viewings".

I'd suspect some amount of confirmation bias might be causing this to happen, but I mention it because of Jozen-Bo's comment in the earlier post:


Last night I could make out an image on that picture above, and when I followed my own advice I could see the hand and door behind it very easily. Now it is day time and I can't see a thing, only blackness. Too much light in the room at this moment. I will again check it this night to see if the image reappears when the circumstances are right.



So now I'm wondering, does an individual's colour/contrast perception vary from time-time, and what might cause this variation?



ETA: I don't mean the effect of allowing one's eyes to become accustomed to current conditions, but if there are day-to-day variations caused by vitamin deficiences or something of that nature.

[Dan O.]

Try wearing a pair of color tinted sunglasses and see if your perception changes when you take them off.

Jozen-Bo's perception of red/blue in the low light conditions could be due to the illumination being primarily red or blue or an after image effect of previously being exposed to mostly yellow orange or green

[Lanzy]

Even if there is an ability to be developed to see in this manner, why would it be classed as paranormal? The "imposible to do" label doesn't really make it paranormal, It was once impossible to run a 4 min mile, the first guy to do it didn't get a paranormal label.

But really, I do suspect you are seeing in low light conditions, does anyone here live close enough to you to come look at your bathroom? In the army we were trained to make use of very very low light conditions by using peripheral vision which works way better than looking at objects directly in what is normally thought of as too dark to see in. Maybe you have this ability naturally. With a bit of concentration and waiting a bit to adjust I can make my way across some extremely dark places without bumping into things. Completely absolutely dark?...no I cannot.

[Cuddles]

So now I'm wondering, does an individual's colour/contrast perception vary from time-time, and what might cause this variation?

Perception certainly does vary over time. As Dan O. says, try looking through a tinted screen for a while and see how things look when you take it away again.

Also the light intensity makes a huge difference to how things are percieved. A big problem here is that the change is not symmetrical. If you go from dim lighting to bright light it only takes your eyes a few seconds to adjust, but going the other way can take hours for your eyes to adjust to the low light. As I understand it, this is due to some chemical which has its production stimulated by light, but which breaks down at a constant rate. This means you can quickly adjust to bright light by producing more, but it takes a long time for your eyes to return to the state they were in.

This could be a problem here since it means that even though you could be looking at things under identical conditions, if you have been in different conditions over the previous few hours you could still percieve things differently.

While it is a possible explanation, I am not fully convinced that it is impossible for warm-blooded creatures to possess infra-vision. For beginners, when the warmth is being radiated, most of the illumination is moving away from the source, the warmth of the creature. That it is moving away from the creature would not make it interfere. The amount that moves sideways is unlikely going to be strong enough to interfere enough to compromise the sense, though it might reduce it some.

We'd need to stay focused on the eyes themselves. Would the eye produce enough heat to interfere? It is a round organ, so this would reduce illumination from coming in sideways and the electromagnetic waves that radiated out from the eyeball would be moving away from and not towards the generating source. I am not convinced that would be enough to interfere. Setting up a test for this would be the best way to determine, so far I am reading deductions based on reason, though as anyone here ought to know, human deductions fall prone to oversights and are fallible.

I'm not sure you understood the explanation. Directions and shapes are irrelevant. The simple fact is that it's impossible to detect infrared radiation with a detector that is at, or above, the temperature of the thing being viewed. End of story. There is no "radiation going sideways", whatever that's supposed to mean, that will change that. There's a good reason the only animals that use infrared as a means of detection are cold blooded, as already explained.

[EHocking]

...So now I'm wondering, does an individual's colour/contrast perception vary from time-time, and what might cause this variation?Tiredness is sufficient. Note that (so I was told) myopia sufferers have more difficulty with focus etc at night than someone with 20/20 vision. One of the explanations from an optician when I complained of just that sort of "problem" during a regular eye check.

So driving at night, probably tired, your sight will be affected slightly, but in my case enough for me to notice. Being a birdwatcher and a keen photographer probably had something to do with me noticing in the first place and being more particular, perhaps.
ETA: I don't mean the effect of allowing one's eyes to become accustomed to current conditions, but if there are day-to-day variations caused by vitamin deficiences or something of that nature.

[Akhenaten]

Try wearing a pair of color tinted sunglasses and see if your perception changes when you take them off.

Jozen-Bo's perception of red/blue in the low light conditions could be due to the illumination being primarily red or blue or an after image effect of previously being exposed to mostly yellow orange or green


Perception certainly does vary over time. As Dan O. says, try looking through a tinted screen for a while and see how things look when you take it away again.


Thank you and done! I did some quick experiments with some cellophane in different colours, and it works exactly as you predict. Orange does the weirdest stuff.



Also the light intensity makes a huge difference to how things are percieved. A big problem here is that the change is not symmetrical. If you go from dim lighting to bright light it only takes your eyes a few seconds to adjust, but going the other way can take hours for your eyes to adjust to the low light. As I understand it, this is due to some chemical which has its production stimulated by light, but which breaks down at a constant rate. This means you can quickly adjust to bright light by producing more, but it takes a long time for your eyes to return to the state they were in.


Yep, that's the sort of effect that I meant when I mentioned adjusting for current conditions. I hadn't thought about the asymmetric nature of it before though, despite it's obviosity™. Thank you.


This could be a problem here since it means that even though you could be looking at things under identical conditions, if you have been in different conditions over the previous few hours you could still percieve things differently.


This would definitely have come into play. Thank you more.

[Akhenaten]

Even if there is an ability to be developed to see in this manner, why would it be classed as paranormal? The "imposible to do" label doesn't really make it paranormal, It was once impossible to run a 4 min mile, the first guy to do it didn't get a paranormal label.


I have the impression that Jozen-Bo would agree that it's possibile that this ability is only a bit sooper, just like 4 minute miles, and not paranormal as in "magic". Your mileage may vary ;)



But really, I do suspect you are seeing in low light conditions, does anyone here live close enough to you to come look at your bathroom? In the army we were trained to make use of very very low light conditions by using peripheral vision which works way better than looking at objects directly in what is normally thought of as too dark to see in. Maybe you have this ability naturally. With a bit of concentration and waiting a bit to adjust I can make my way across some extremely dark places without bumping into things. Completely absolutely dark?...no I cannot.


I'm an ex-soldier myself, but I'd forgotten about the off-centre vision trick, or rather, because I still use it all the time, I was probably taking it for granted as being normal. On reflection, I'll bet it isn't, since most of the people I know are actually hopeless in the dark.

I was also reminded by Cuddles about how long it actually takes for your night vision to adjust before you have to go play soldiers at night.

[Toke]

I was also reminded by Cuddles about how long it actually takes for your night vision to adjust before you have to go play soldiers at night.

As boyscout we enventually figured out that flashlights are best used only to read maps and roadsigns, rarely to follow the road/dicht/hegde.

[Akhenaten]

Tiredness is sufficient. Note that (so I was told) myopia sufferers have more difficulty with focus etc at night than someone with 20/20 vision. One of the explanations from an optician when I complained of just that sort of "problem" during a regular eye check.

So driving at night, probably tired, your sight will be affected slightly, but in my case enough for me to notice. Being a birdwatcher and a keen photographer probably had something to do with me noticing in the first place and being more particular, perhaps.


Understood and thank you. My own eyes are wonky in that I can see just fine at night, but I can't focus on anything in bright sunlight. "Ageing" is sufficient explanation of that for me :)



ETA: @ Toke. Yeah, me too! Later on in the Army we used red lenses in our flashlights to be a bit more sneaky and to preserve our night vision. It's nice to have all these clever people to explain to us why we were doing these things all those years ago. :)

[Moochie]

Reading this started me worrying a bit, since the way Jozen-bo described the visibility of the colours was exactly as I was seeing it. So I had another look, and tonight I can quite clearly colour in all but the left-most boxes myself. I also seem to be able to see the picture more clearly, particularly the bright edges. Conditions of ambient light, temperature, positioning etc have been the same for both "viewings".

I'd suspect some amount of confirmation bias might be causing this to happen, but I mention it because of Jozen-Bo's comment in the earlier post:





So now I'm wondering, does an individual's colour/contrast perception vary from time-time, and what might cause this variation?



ETA: I don't mean the effect of allowing one's eyes to become accustomed to current conditions, but if there are day-to-day variations caused by vitamin deficiences or something of that nature.


I wear glasses for both reading and regular vision, and I didn't see anything in that "picture"--it was just a black square to me. (I have a Dell 17" CRT monitor.)

I have noticed, however, that outdoors, at night, or in any situation with poor lighting, I seem to be able to see better without my glasses.

I need to take into consideration my age, also--I'm 59.


M.

[Jeff Corey]

Perception certainly does vary over time. As Dan O. says, try looking through a tinted screen for a while and see how things look when you take it away again.

Also the light intensity makes a huge difference to how things are percieved. A big problem here is that the change is not symmetrical. If you go from dim lighting to bright light it only takes your eyes a few seconds to adjust, but going the other way can take hours for your eyes to adjust to the low light...

Full dark adaptation takes about 30 minutes. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.yorku.ca/eye/darkadap.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.yorku.ca/eye/darkada1.htm&usg=__OaIXKPZlnYZaFguIfO0z6_79Unw=&h=424&w=600&sz=8&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=p5HNY4vCFi32HM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddark%2Badaptation%2Bfunction%26hl%3De n%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

[Miss_Kitt]

I mentioned this in my earlier post, but your "night vision" chemical is called rhodopsin (or "visual purple" )and it does indeed get used up by exposure to bright light. Here's some linkys, if you're interested. Short version: cones have color pigments and do sharp focus; rods are more light sensitive and motion sensitive, but are not as focussed. The chemical the rods use to transmit messages to the brain is a breakdown product of rhodopsin. No rhodopsin=no low-light vision; the rate of recombination into useable rhodopsin is a lot slower than the (normal light) breakdown rate.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/eye2.htm
http://health.howstuffworks.com/eyes-adjust-darkness.htm
Rhodopsin takes time to be created / recreated when your eyes run low. (Note: I'd be interested to learn if one's "normal" level of rhodopsin varies substantially between individuals.) Also, lack of Vitamin A can contribute to a low rhodopsin level.

One more useful stray "night vision" fact is that the degree of dilation of the pupil of course impacts the amount of light let in, and thus, the amount of low-light visual acuity. Smoking cigarettes--or being exposed to enough passive smoke--has a strong negative impact on the ability of your pupil to expand after exposure to light. My mental notebook says an hour is the length of effect, but a quick Googly shows that they are detecting effects up to 12 hours later now (though the curve drops off, of course).

Fascinating stuff -- I have to finish this page on military night-vision training now...
:D MK

[Cuddles]

I mentioned this in my earlier post, but your "night vision" chemical is called rhodopsin (or "visual purple" )and it does indeed get used up by exposure to bright light. Here's some linkys, if you're interested. Short version: cones have color pigments and do sharp focus; rods are more light sensitive and motion sensitive, but are not as focussed. The chemical the rods use to transmit messages to the brain is a breakdown product of rhodopsin. No rhodopsin=no low-light vision; the rate of recombination into useable rhodopsin is a lot slower than the (normal light) breakdown rate.

OK, so I had it exactly backwards. Oops.