Moderated: Interview with Vision from Feeling

[chillzero]

This thread is the result of a discussion with Vision from Feeling and UncaYimmy.
(see here for details:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131286)

The only posts which will be approved here will be posts made by UncaYimmy and Vision from Feeling.

If you have a question you would like to address to VfF, please PM it to UncaYimmy, who will field all questions, and engage in an interview style discussion with VfF on behalf of the forum. This is to ensure a smooth discussion and continuity, as the main reason for this thread arises from the very disjointed progression of the other thread VfF is attempting to contribute to.

The next post will be a post from UncaYimmy to lay out the opening of the discussion.

Good luck to both contributers, and I hope everyone enjoys this rather experimental approach to a discussion here.

[UncaYimmy]

First, many thanks to the moderators for going the extra mile.

Anita (aka Vision From Feeling) agreed to participate with me in this interview style thread to try to bring focus and clarification to her claims as well as to the specific issues the skeptics are having. Of course, she and everyone else are welcome to participate in the other thread where Anita, to her credit, has tried to answer as many questions as possible.

For the record, I am a skeptic.

To get started, Anita, when it comes to the detecting medical issues with people, we're all curious about the process. For example, suppose I go to a doctor because I think I broke my arm when I fell off my tricycle. Assuming no bones are poking through my skin, she will ask me a series of questions, then request an x-ray based on my responses about what I did and where it hurts. She will then look at the film. If my arm is broken, she will see it on the film.

In your case you have said that readings come to you spontaneously as well as through deliberate effort (please correct me if I am wrong). Let's first walk through the deliberate effort.

I show up at your home wearing normal clothes and request that you read my body to detect any ailments I might have.

1) While you are looking at me, do you visually (meaning with your eyeballs) see anything besides the external parts of my body and clothes?

2) You've indicated elsewhere that you "download" information and see images in your mind. Does this happen while you are looking at me or do you need to shut your eyes and/or look away?

3) How long does it take before these images form?

4) Can you stop these images at will once they start?

4a) If not, how long before they go away on their own?

5) Can you manipulate these images in your mind. For example, can you zoom in/out? Rotate them?

6) You've mentioned elsewhere that these images are (or can be) real-time. If I, the person being viewed, were to move, would the images in your mind reflect these movements?

7) As best you can describe what you would see if, for example, I were missing a molar?

7a) When you say that you can see inside the body, how do the images appear? Feel free to use the following as references if it helps:

MRI
Ultrasound
X-Ray
Colonoscopy

8) When you are seeing these images, can you use your normal vision to see the physical world around you?

9) Once the images stop, can you bring them up again at a later time?

10) You've mentioned "feelings" in addition to images. Do you mean physical feelings (sense of touch) or do you mean an emotional sensation such as one might describe a "gut reaction" that a person is being deceitful?

10a) Do images always come with feelings? If not, do you ever get feelings without images?

I know this is a lot to ask all at once, but I think it's important to lay a foundation of what it is you are experiencing.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Thank you UncaYimmy for setting up this private thread. Hopefully the discussions here will be clearer and lead to more progress. Here are the answers to your questions:

Quote:

1) While you are looking at me, do you visually (meaning with your eyeballs) see anything besides the external parts of my body and clothes?

When I look at you with my ordinary sense of vision I see you in the same way as we all would. I see the front of you that is facing me, and see the exterior surface of you, and do not see beneath the clothes or skin and do not visually detect anything that would hint medical conditions that are not externally identifiable, such as the condition in your example of a possibly broken bone.

To form the medical perceptions I need to see the person with my eyes, possibly to know where they are to locate the source of the information, and believe that I then detect vibrational information that I perceive through the sense of feeling. These medical images form in my mind, and not in the world around me. The perceptions are thus, I believe, not formed by normal eyesight.

Quote:

2) You've indicated elsewhere that you "download" information and see images in your mind. Does this happen while you are looking at me or do you need to shut your eyes and/or look away?

The perceptions either come to me on their own, usually when it is the case of more serious health information whose "vibrational signature" is more loud than others, or the perceptions come about from a conscious effort I make to detect information. When I "download" information, this refers to a conscious effort when I reach into the vibrational information of a person's body. To do this I need to first look at the person with my eyes. It is often a very brief look. In almost all cases I will then either close my eyes or look away, and the images begin to form in my mind based on the vibrational patterns that I felt in the person. I close my eyes or look away to not be distracted by the ordinary sense of vision. However, I think I could continue to look at the person and would still be able to place my focus on the perceptions that form in my mind and choose to not let myself be distracted by real world images. So, the answer is, that the images will form whether I look away or not, but that I prefer to look away to have less of a distraction from other sources of information. You see, although the medical images are based on information in the real world, the medical images I am looking at are in my mind. Not in the world around me. That is why once I've formed the images it is helpful to look away, or to close my eyes to see them better.

Quote:

3) How long does it take before these images form?

I think it depends on the strength of the vibrational information that forms the perceptions. Perceptions that come to me on their own, from more severe health problems, appear immediately. And in cases where I have to search for information it takes a while longer for the perceptions to form, since the vibrational information is not as strong. Typically it takes from "no time" to a few seconds. Sometimes I spend up to a minute forming images very carefully, if I picked up on a hint of a health problem and want to work on forming the entire perception of it. It really takes very little time. But on a test I want to be allowed more time than it normally takes, just in case.

Quote:

4) Can you stop these images at will once they start?

When it comes to severe health problems, their images are very clear and come to me on their own and can be impossible to ignore. When it comes to perceptions that are formed from weaker information and from a conscious effort of mine to focus on them, as soon as I take my focus away from them I no longer detect the images. So it depends on the strength of the information, as well as where my focus is. It is often possible to focus on other things and ignore the images, just like you can have music playing in the background and hear it well when you are listening, and when you focus on something else you won't even be aware of the music at all as if it's not even there.

Quote:

4a) If not, how long before they go away on their own?

The images do not linger, and do not fade away gradually. I would say as soon as I am no longer continuously perceiving them, and do not hold them alive in my memory, they can be gone.

Quote:

5) Can you manipulate these images in your mind. For example, can you zoom in/out? Rotate them?

Yes, and I do that most of the time. The images of health problems appear in their most relevant angle and magnification that best describes the situation. However I can go from there and choose to look at structures in the body from any angle that I choose, and from any level of magnification that I want. I find that going deeper into organs, seeing the tissue structure, and individual cells, and molecular level, going into the atoms, that after the atomic level comes what I call the vibrational level of magnification, where all things appear to be vibrational structures, and I believe that this is what I am fundamentally perceiving, that forms the larger scale composite information. I can observe images from several angles and several levels of magnification simultaneously.

Quote:

6) You've mentioned elsewhere that these images are (or can be) real-time. If I, the person being viewed, were to move, would the images in your mind reflect these movements?

I think so, although I do not have much experience with this. I will consider finding out in the upcoming study. I believe so, because I often detect when people swallow, for instance. I strongly believe the answer is yes.

I am by the way considering simpler tests that do not involve already occurring health information, but the detection of induced sensory experience. For instance, a person could pinch their back, or have a finger in a bucket of ice water behind their back, and I do not see their head. Something like that could possibly be done. For instance I've experienced sensing the taste of what people eat, while not seeing their face. I will look into some of these options in the upcoming study.

Quote:

7) As best you can describe what you would see if, for example, I were missing a molar?

I would see the oral cavity, which looks very different when the mouth is closed than when it is open, it is dark, smaller, and has a different shape. I perceive the teeth, the gums, and always also the jawbones, but not the facial muscle or skin or other adjacent structures of the face. Interestingly, only relevant parts of the body appear in the images, unless I choose to look at other parts as well and add them to the image. According to my perceptions, the jawbone is associated with the health of teeth.

I typically detect the missing molar when I do the head-to-toe reading of a person, where I am looking through the vibrational feeling of a body to find anything that is out of ordinary or of interest. I know what the vibrational aspect of a missing molar feels like, or, I know what a missing molar feels like, so I can superimpose that with the actual image I am perceiving and detect a resonance when there is a match. I can then work to verify the match by making an effort to form a clearer image of the area, looking for characteristics of a missing tooth, such as the absence of the feeling of the dense tooth material, or the feeling of the socket in the gums that is also distinctly different when a tooth is missing. Often I detect the missing molar right away, because it is something that is "different", but I can also choose to search for it if I didn't detect it already. I do not know if I can detect all cases of missing molars, I do not have the experience to tell me that, but it is one of the types of information I think I am quite good at.

Detecting health information is based on both visual information as well as what things feel like.

Quote:

7a) When you say that you can see inside the body, how do the images appear? Feel free to use the following as references if it helps:
MRI
Ultrasound
X-Ray
Colonoscopy

The images do not appear among the things I see with my eyes in the world or in the person. The images appear in my mind, more like images based on memory but very clear. The images are in actual color. Much of the internal of the body is in pink and orange, along with white, red, and other colors.

Compared to MRI images, my images are not cross-sections of the body. The images include relevant structures that involve the health information, which sometimes means that structures physically distant from one another in their location in the body are perceived in the same image, even though there becomes "unspecified space" in between the different locations. So those are some major differences: The images are three-dimensional, and only involve relevant structures. Also, the perception involves more than just the structures and shapes. I also perceive the texture of tissues, and information about what the problem is and other information that is not just visual. Also, the images are in color. But just like in MRI, I can distinguish the different types of tissues and layers.

There is no resemblance with my perceptions to the 2D ultrasound. The quality of the 2D ultrasound seems very poor. 3D ultrasound is very similar to my perceptions in being clear in 3D shapes, however my perceptions also hold information that is felt, and information that is understanding, and reaches into deeper magnifications even down to the sub-atomic level if necessary and if I want to.

I would rarely perceive an area of the body all at once as large as in this X-ray image linked to in your question, or an area as large as this all with the same clarity throughout. Typically only the affected area would be perceived, and even if I chose to look at the entire arm bones, the fracture would still be clearer than the arm bones themselves. To see a fracture, the image would begin being at the site of the fracture and would reveal information that also relates to other tissue types that are affected by the fracture, and also with information that is felt.

The colonoscopy image has the most resemblance among the images provided, to the perceptions I have, although my images are never quite this bright in color. The brightness of this image provided in your question appears to not be authentic and to be accomplished with a bright light source, and is not quite the brightness I perceive in tissues. The perceptions have information about shape, texture, and color in a way that is similar to this picture, although my perceptions also tell me what it is about and gives me perception of feeling what is involved.

I was very happy to see this image of the colonoscopy, it resembles very well the type of images that I see and it feels like a great relief to know that others can see what I see.

Quote:

8) When you are seeing these images, can you use your normal vision to see the physical world around you?

Yes, my normal vision is never switched off. I am aware of the normal vision images, and the images perceived with this ability, as being two different categories of vision and they never get confused. I always know what visual perception was derived from normal vision, and what was derived with the ability that uses the sense of feeling to form images.

I especially recognize this red color from the inside of the colon. If I may say so, the most beautiful human tissues are,
1) The woman's uterus/cervix. It is beautifully red and has beautiful folded layers.
2) Yellow bone marrow. I love the way it looks like fluffy whipped pudding.
3) Liver on the tissue level. Love that reticular tissue. It makes such a perfect pattern.
4) I've also started to appreciate the appearance of the spleen, and the folds of the brain.
There are beautiful things in the body, and if you spend as much time as I have seeing them, you learn to appreciate tissues.

Quote:

9) Once the images stop, can you bring them up again at a later time?

Yes, by remembering them. On one occasion I chose to do the head-to-toe reading of a person I know, who was not in the same room as me at that time, and was able to form the images and derive health information I had not detected in him before.

Quote:

10) You've mentioned "feelings" in addition to images. Do you mean physical feelings (sense of touch) or do you mean an emotional sensation such as one might describe a "gut reaction" that a person is being deceitful?

The medical perceptions are, I would say, as much visual as they are feeling. The feeling information is both such that would be felt if you touched the tissues. The hardness of bone, the glossyness of muscle or of the surface of the liver for instance, but mostly information that is not such that you would perceive by touch. Temperature, density, weight, sometimes even taste and scent.

Taste and scent are extremely rare. Typically the only thing I smell is sometimes the stomach organ, which can smell like some type of sausage, or actually it smells like hydrochloric acid (I've smelt this in the chemistry lab). Also sometimes the brain smells exactly like a damp mossy forest floor covered in mushrooms. Galactose sugar has a distinct smell, too, and often I detect a human's personal feromone signature scent, which is a scent none of us can perceive by the sense of smell with the nose.

Quote:

10a) Do images always come with feelings? If not, do you ever get feelings without images?

The images always come with some form of feeling or another, more or less. For instance, a fracture would look like the ends of the bone and revealing the image of the red bone marrow, but I would also feel the sharpness of the shards of bone, and the density of the bone tissue, and the feeling of the periosteum which is the thin layer of white connective tissue that covers bones. There is always feeling involved, of one form or the other. No I never get just the feeling without a visual image, because the visual images are so easy to form, especially if I'm picking up the information by feeling things about them.

Quote:

I know this is a lot to ask all at once, but I think it's important to lay a foundation of what it is you are experiencing.

Not at all, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share more about what it is I am experiencing. I enjoyed answering your questions.

[UncaYimmy]

I do not believe you adequately answered my questions about stopping the images and their duration.

You said that with severe health problems the images come to you "on their own and can be impossible to ignore" but for less severe issues they last only while you focus on them [emphasis added]. Ignoring them is not stopping them. I can stop my eyes from seeing you by shutting my eyes. I can stop hearing you by plugging my ears. I can stop touching you...well...you get the idea.

1a) So, can you stop the images or not? What if you left the room? What if the subject left the room?

In response to how long the images last you said images continue until you are "no longer continuously perceiving them." I don't understand what that means or how to translate that into time. For example, if I looked at you, I could continue to see you for as long as you were within my field of vision (assuming, of course, I had the stamina and concentration). By contrast I could only hear a book hit the floor for the brief duration of the event.

1b) Using minutes/seconds/hours, how long can you make the images last? What's the longest duration you recall? How long do they normally last

2) In your response you describe bone marrow as being yellow and fluffy then later describe it as red. Please explain this apparent contradiction.

3) Please explain under what conditions you have seen fractures. How many people? Which bone(s)? What was the nature of the break(s) - how severe? How long after the break before you saw it? Was it in a cast?

You wrote, "The images of health problems appear in their most relevant angle and magnification that best describes the situation." You say that you see "relevant" structures. You also say "Perceptions that come to me on their own, from more severe health problems, appear immediately."

4) It seems that you are saying that your perception knows there is a health problem before your conscious mind has realized it. Thus if you look at a woman who has a large tumor on her ovaries, the first image that is formed in your mind is that of the tumor. You wouldn't have to look for it because it would just be there. Is that correct? Please feel free to elaborate.

5) At what age did you begin having these perceptions?

5a) Did you know what you were seeing? If not, when did you know?

5b) Have your perceptions changed as you have gotten older?

5c) Who did you first tell about these perceptions and what was their reaction?

6) Do your perceptions work with other animals besides humans (dogs, cats, birds, squirrels, fish, frogs, snakes)?

6b) How about insects and spiders?

6c) How about plants?

[VisionFromFeeling]

Thank you UncaYimmy, that was going to be something I was about to tell you next: if you feel that I have not answered a question properly, please let me know as I can always elaborate.

Quote:

You said that with severe health problems the images come to you "on their own and can be impossible to ignore" but for less severe issues they last only while you focus on them [emphasis added]. Ignoring them is not stopping them. I can stop my eyes from seeing you by shutting my eyes. I can stop hearing you by plugging my ears. I can stop touching you...well...you get the idea.

1a) So, can you stop the images or not? What if you left the room? What if the subject left the room?

When it comes to perceptions that come to me on their own, while I see the person, I can not block the images. When I look away, close my eyes, or no longer see the person if one of us leaves, I no longer have the perception.

When it comes to perceptions that form due to my choice of looking for information, such perceptions are easily stopped as soon as I take my mind's attention away from them. However, such perceptions can also be formed while looking away, with my eyes closed, or even being in a different room and no longer seeing the person, because these perceptions are made in a different way.

So for the strong perceptions that form on their own, they cease as soon as I no longer see the person. And perceptions that are formed from my choice of searching for information and choosing to pay attention, they cease when I take my attention away from them, whether I still see the person or not. I hope this answers your question more thoroughly, if not, again, let me know.

Quote:

In response to how long the images last you said images continue until you are "no longer continuously perceiving them." I don't understand what that means or how to translate that into time. For example, if I looked at you, I could continue to see you for as long as you were within my field of vision (assuming, of course, I had the stamina and concentration). By contrast I could only hear a book hit the floor for the brief duration of the event.

The strong perceptions that come on their own last as long as I look at the person, and once I no longer look at the person they are gone immediately. So their duration depends on for how long I see the person.

The perceptions that form due to my choice to look closer, last for as long as I choose to keep my attention on them. I can continue to have access to the "downloaded" vibrational information even after the person leaves or I'm looking away or my eyes are closed. This downloaded vibrational information remains available for me and I can continue to use it to form the visual and felt perceptions even when the person is no longer there. The duration of these images that are formed by when I place my attention to their corresponding vibrational information, last for as long as I keep my attention on them. Which of course can have almost any length of time. And once my attention is no longer on them to keep them alive, the perceptions fade away.

Quote:

1b) Using minutes/seconds/hours, how long can you make the images last? What's the longest duration you recall? How long do they normally last

I typically have no need to keep images for longer than a few seconds or a few minutes until I've extracted all the information that is of interest. I think I could keep an image for as long as I choose to. The longest duration I've experienced is perhaps a couple of hours, but that involves looking at an entire body and going from one perception to another.

Perceptions that come to me on their own last for as long as I look at the person.

Perceptions that are formed from my own choice to reach into the information last for as long as I choose to keep my attention on them. Most of such perceptions therefore last for one second. When I want to make detailed observations or to describe what I am looking at I spend a few seconds up to a few minutes on a perception. When I encounter new information I can spend several minutes on it to learn to understand what I am looking at. Sometimes I spend hours with perceptions, but that involves an entire body and several perceptions, and to study or to look at just out of interest rather than to find something I already know I am looking for. I think I might have spent maybe two hours doing this. I think I have the potential to spend a long time on perceptions. I have requested a generous ten minutes with each person on a test, to eliminate having to be concerned with time.

Quote:

2) In your response you describe bone marrow as being yellow and fluffy then later describe it as red. Please explain this apparent contradiction.

There are two different types of bone marrow, red and yellow. They are very distinct from each other, and found in different parts of the body.

Quote:

3) Please explain under what conditions you have seen fractures. How many people? Which bone(s)? What was the nature of the break(s) - how severe? How long after the break before you saw it? Was it in a cast?

I've been around a couple of tens of people with recent fractures but only chosen to look closely and to form perceptions in less than five cases. I've been near people with fractures in the hip bones, thigh bone, foot or ankle, wrist, and possibly others. I do not know what the severity of most of the these fractures was considered to be. I've seen very recent fractures that were at most a day old (I've worked at nursing homes where fractures are unfortunately common because of osteoporosis and bad balance), and fractures that are considered to have healed. Some of these fractures were in a cast but not all. I feel confident to include recent fractures on a test since they have many indicators of their presence, detectable by my ability but not by ordinary senses, such as the cellular activity going on at the fracture site. I expect that I would be able to identify at least some healed fractures especially if they did not heal back to normal but lead to some misalignment or abnormal mapping of adjacent nerves or muscle which leads to discomfort that the person or the body is aware of. The upcoming study will give me more experience with fractures and let me know how well I perform with fractures.

Quote:

You wrote, "The images of health problems appear in their most relevant angle and magnification that best describes the situation." You say that you see "relevant" structures. You also say "Perceptions that come to me on their own, from more severe health problems, appear immediately."

4) It seems that you are saying that your perception knows there is a health problem before your conscious mind has realized it. Thus if you look at a woman who has a large tumor on her ovaries, the first image that is formed in your mind is that of the tumor. You wouldn't have to look for it because it would just be there. Is that correct? Please feel free to elaborate.

That is the nature of the vibrational information that forms the images. The way I understand it, the vibrational information is what I detect. This vibration is then what the atoms are composed of, then the molecules, cells, and tissue. Based on the perceived structure of the vibrational information, this is then in my awareness constructed upwards into corresponding structure on the atomic, molecular, and cellular and tissue level and becomes perception that is visual in structure, shape and color, and also texture, feeling, density, weight, temperature, and sometimes sound, taste, and scent.

One example of sound is when red blood cells scrape against the walls of the blood vessels, it sounds like when you run your finger against a sheet of paper.

Health problems have a form of disorderly vibrational structure. There is dissonance, something that stands out and does not blend in in the smooth way with the other vibrational information as healthy structures do. So it is easy to detect, it is like sharp shards in an otherwise smooth landscape. My mind identifies these as easily as yours identifies anything out of the ordinary, such as a black spot on a sheet of white paper, or in music one note that does not blend in. But not only that. Health problems are also recognized by the body that has them and the body's own awareness of a health problem also makes it distinguishable from the rest. The warmth and redness of an inflammatory response (for instance when a wound becomes red and "inflamed", which is nothing but added bloodflow to the region for repair and attention, these occur also on the inside of the body, in the lungs sometimes for instance). The nerves can have an unusual firing pattern of the sensory chemicals, which gives rise to a different voltage as well as magnetism in that area. Pain, discomfort, distress. Contraction of the muscle, cramps. There are many changes in the body itself, either as part of the health problem in other tissues and other areas of the body, or as the body's response to a health problem, that also make a health problem distinguishable. On the vibrational level.

I believe that the fact that health problems are more distinguishable the more severe they are, is both due to the nature of its vibrational structure containing dissonance but also I believe that my brain's processing and selection of information detects and notices this information among other information. I believe the identification of health problems is due to such a combination.

Quote:

5) At what age did you begin having these perceptions?

Age 15, and this ability grows with experience so it is far better today than it was back then. I'd love to see how it will be 10, or 20 years from now.

Quote:

5a) Did you know what you were seeing? If not, when did you know?

I always knew the source of my perceptions, so I've always known medical perceptions to be images of human tissue from inside the body. Part of the perception is to feel where they come from. For instance if I saw the image of liver tissue before I knew how to identify this picture with liver tissue, I would know it originated from the liver and can identify the liver by its appearance and location. To describe what I see and to better match my images with words I benefit from learning terminology from other sources.

Quote:

5b) Have your perceptions changed as you have gotten older?

The perceptions become more frequent, easier to attain, more detailed, clearer. I become better at describing them, and all from experience of using the ability. It is a skill that grows with experience.

Quote:

5c) Who did you first tell about these perceptions and what was their reaction?

The earliest account I recall is describing in detail the pain a relative had in their hand. The person was very amazed that I could do this.

Quote:

6) Do your perceptions work with other animals besides humans (dogs, cats, birds, squirrels, fish, frogs, snakes)?

Oh yes. I love looking at their bodies and also at how they perceive the world, their thoughts and sensory perception. Amphibians and vultures have among the most beautiful thoughts. Both are non-aggressive animals. There is no difference in difficulty of perceiving human or animal tissue. I have less practical experience with animals but I think I could do just as well with them. One of the things that amazes me is that the alveoli in the lungs of the African clawed frog are proportionally MUCH larger than they are in the human lungs.

I love looking at the chemicals in the body fluids of insects and would love to study insect biology and find out exactly what those are. It is tremendously different from the internal chemistry of humans. I love reading the sensory perceptions of insects. For instance one black flying insect makes a sound with their wings that humans can't hear, but I hear it with these perceptions and can also decipher to understand what animals communicate. How? By taking in my mind a copy of the vibrational aspect of the communication and applying it to a copy of the vibrational aspect of the animal, I see how these combine and what the effects would be. I can do vibrational algebra to calculate theoretical effects in resultant vibration which translates back into real world physical things.

Quote:

6b) How about insects and spiders?

Insects are my favorite animal to study. They are superior to humans in many aspects. I can look at a spider and perceive the extent of its venom in a human body, by combining the vibrational aspect of the chemical with the vibrational aspect of the human body in my mind, observing where "something happens" and looking closer.

Don't forget that I also see bacteria. The interesting thing is that I can download the vibrational aspect of a bacteria and experiment in my mind by applying different types of vibrations to it to see for instance what would kill it. I can then translate the effective vibration into a corresponding light structure (to be generated with electronic instruments) or a chemical medicine, or other large scale, "real" things (as if vibration weren't real, but some of you might think so). This way I've invented a hypothesis for a treatment method for the flesh eating bacteria that I want someone to study but to give me the credit of its discovery.

Quote:

6c) How about plants?

I perceive images of the cells of plants and perceive the vibrational aspect of their molecules. I can take those vibrational understandings of the molecules and in my mind apply them to a variety of theoretical situations, and have discovered for instance a plant that has a very potent cancer remedy. I've also seen a cancer remedy in an orange mushroom, except that this molecule would also destroy the human kidneys. When I take the vibrational aspect of a plant's chemical and apply it to the full vibrational aspect of a human body, all the effects that the chemical would have are highlighted in the body and take place in animation for me to observe, and I can observe the theoretical effects that this chemical would have. I can also look at medicines and apply their vibrational aspect to the one of a human body to see what the effects of the medicine are. This leads to a lot of very interesting conclusions. I can very often by doing this figure out what the medicinal intention amidst all the harmful side-effects is. The very first thing besides crystals, that I perceived a vibrational aspect of was our houseplant, of this kind, the prayer plant,

[UncaYimmy]

I have read your claims with great interest. They present a very troubling problem: I can do pretty much everything that you claim to be able to do. I can do this using well-documented techniques called observation, deduction, memory recall, manipulation, confirmation bias and imagination.

The primary difference between us is that I would knowingly use these techniques. Obviously, you are not doing so knowingly. This begs the question of whether it is possible to use these techniques without realizing it.

The answer is a resounding yes. It's easy to find examples for all of them, but the imagination is trickier. Suffice it to say that many people have believed they could see things in their mind that represented reality, but later came to understand it was just their own imagination creating the images. Many a psychic claimant genuinely believes he "sees" images on Zener cards, but statistics have clearly demonstrated this as nothing more than imagination.

Therefore, we need to devise a test to eliminate all of the known techniques that we can. This leaves us with your imagination as the only variable that is beyond anyone's control.

Suppose we devise a test where we eliminate as best we can the chances of you having prior knowledge or being able to observe something that would enable a "normal" person to deduce some condition that you reasonably expect to be able to detect only by using your extraordinary abilities. This doesn't mean you cannot see the person. It only means that there are no clues about the condition detectable by the ordinary senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch.

Suppose further that this is condition (or conditions) is something that you believe you can reliably detect. I'm not saying we know what that is yet. I'm only asking you to assume that you have demonstrated the reliability to your satisfaction outside of the test conditions.

Suppose also that we agree that you can only give a binary (yes/no) answer as to the presence of this condition (or conditions).

Suppose then that we conduct an adequate number of trials that will allow us to say that X or fewer correct answers would be due to chance and that Y or more correct answers would be evidence that you have performed at a level that is very unlikely to be the result of chance.

And finally, suppose there are no other factors that you or I deem objectionable to the accuracy of the test.

If you performed at level no better than chance, would you conclude that your perceptions are the result of something ordinary rather than the extraordinary claim of sensing vibrational information? A yes should require no further explanation on your part. If you answer no, please explain what would be required in a test for you to conclude that you are not detecting vibrational information and do not have a special ability regarding medical conditions?

[VisionFromFeeling]

Sorry for the delay in answering in this thread, but here it is.

Quote:

I have read your claims with great interest. They present a very troubling problem: I can do pretty much everything that you claim to be able to do. I can do this using well-documented techniques called observation, deduction, memory recall, manipulation, confirmation bias and imagination.

I realize that a paranormal ability such as the one behind my paranormal claim has not been discovered or verified to exist by science, and that many before me have come with similar claims as mine and all have either failed such a paranormal test, or failed to conform their claim to a proper scientific test. I also do realize that statistics and past experience of this sort thus indicates that my claim will most likely conclude in the same manner, that what I am doing is nothing but some form of normal, as opposed to paranormal, means of acquiring the health information, which I'd be responsible for without my knowledge of it.

I consider myself a rational person, at least I try to be, or want to be. Still, being a rational person who has unusual experiences. The fact that when I look at people I can perceive images in my mind of what I experience to be impressions of the inside of their bodies, is not something I would hold as paranormal in any way, in itself. The reason I am here, and doing this investigation, is because these perceptions have appeared to have good accuracy in the past. I am definitely open to reaching the conclusion that either the actual accuracy is revealed as being not as accurate as it had seemed to be from past experience, or that the origin of these medical perceptions is not in the real, mutual world but entirely subjective or imaginary on my part.

Regardless of what the outcome of a test would reveal, I am interested in the already interesting apparent accuracies, whether of course it is the case of cold reading or even an actual paranormal ability of extrasensory perception, who knows.

I'm here because I've experienced apparently accurate medical perceptions where I can personally not imagine what cold reading would have been available or responsible for those specific perceptions. Cases where it concerns a person I've just met, medical information that I definitely should have had no prior knowledge of, information that is not considered to come with any external clues, and even cases where the apparent accuracy was established by means other than me telling someone what I perceived. I realize that now that I've begun a paranormal investigation, I have more to learn especially about cold reading and the natural explanations to an experience such as mine.

I consider myself open to any outcome and conclusion of a formal test of my claim, and I would not reject a conclusion that this would be cold reading. Cold reading that would be interesting to me in itself, by leading to interesting cases of accuracy, and by being something that I do without being aware that I automatically associate some form of clues to the various forms of information that I perceive.

I do not take the perceptions as seriously as conventional perception and do not experience them with belief. On the contrary I am often in disbelief of a perception of a health condition when it is one that I can not confirm by looking at the person and one that is unlikely based on my expectations. Yet, I've not been confirmed incorrect so far, but that is what the upcoming study is for. It is able to reveal inaccuracy in perceptions, if it takes place, and will give me an opportunity to try my perceptions in a situation that disables cold reading, so that an answer can be found to this 'mystery'.

Quote:

The primary difference between us is that I would knowingly use these techniques. Obviously, you are not doing so knowingly. This begs the question of whether it is possible to use these techniques without realizing it.

Well, there are plenty of those who use cold reading without knowing it, and if all this is is cold reading then I would be one of those who use it without knowing that they do. Of course cold reading is possible without one's awareness. It seems that the human mind is programmed to automatically read faces and body language of persons and deduce all kinds of conclusions about them, I think we all do this whether we realize it or not.

Quote:

The answer is a resounding yes. It's easy to find examples for all of them, but the imagination is trickier. Suffice it to say that many people have believed they could see things in their mind that represented reality, but later came to understand it was just their own imagination creating the images. Many a psychic claimant genuinely believes he "sees" images on Zener cards, but statistics have clearly demonstrated this as nothing more than imagination.

When I have a medical perception I do not automatically assume that it represents reality. I apply skepticism to them and fully realize that they may be my very own subjective impressions. The only reason I am having this investigation is because of the apparent accuracy and correlation between my perceptions and actual health information. Of course my perceptions could be imagination, imagination that I am not consciously responsible for. A test will find out.

Quote:

Therefore, we need to devise a test to eliminate all of the known techniques that we can. This leaves us with your imagination as the only variable that is beyond anyone's control.

That's right, and I generally refer to these means of disallowing cold reading as "test conditions". I plan to try out some test conditions on the upcoming study. For instance, do I have the perceptions if the person is behind a screen? Once all necessary test conditions are in place, it leaves us with my imagination or perception, which ever we find out that it is.

Quote:

Suppose we devise a test where we eliminate as best we can the chances of you having prior knowledge or being able to observe something that would enable a "normal" person to deduce some condition that you reasonably expect to be able to detect only by using your extraordinary abilities. This doesn't mean you cannot see the person. It only means that there are no clues about the condition detectable by the ordinary senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch.

Suppose further that this is condition (or conditions) is something that you believe you can reliably detect. I'm not saying we know what that is yet. I'm only asking you to assume that you have demonstrated the reliability to your satisfaction outside of the test conditions.

Suppose also that we agree that you can only give a binary (yes/no) answer as to the presence of this condition (or conditions).

Suppose then that we conduct an adequate number of trials that will allow us to say that X or fewer correct answers would be due to chance and that Y or more correct answers would be evidence that you have performed at a level that is very unlikely to be the result of chance.

And finally, suppose there are no other factors that you or I deem objectionable to the accuracy of the test.

If you performed at level no better than chance, would you conclude that your perceptions are the result of something ordinary rather than the extraordinary claim of sensing vibrational information? A yes should require no further explanation on your part. If you answer no, please explain what would be required in a test for you to conclude that you are not detecting vibrational information and do not have a special ability regarding medical conditions?

This is the type of test I expect to have. And if I fail to obtain medical perceptions in such a test I would definitely conclude, as we all would conclude, that it is not the case of a paranormal ability of perceiving accurate health information. Yes.

The test you have described in a general sense, is what according to what my claim is, should still enable my medical perceptions to continue if it is the case of a paranormal ability, yet would disable my medical perceptions to continue if it is the case of a 'normal' ability, such as cold reading. So if I were to fail that test it would definitely reveal that there is no unusual, or paranormal, ability of detecting accurate health information in persons. And this paranormal claim would be falsified. And this paranormal investigation would be terminated since it would have reached its objective of finding out the source of the perceptions.

Thank you UncaYimmy for your time and work into my claim, it is highly appreciated.

[UncaYimmy]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I consider myself a rational person, at least I try to be, or want to be. Still, being a rational person who has unusual experiences.

You brought have brought up being a rational and skeptical person, so I feel in that sense it is fair game as a subject. Even if you hadn't, you are the only person providing data about your claims regarding the events that have led to this discussion. Therefore, your credibility is an issue. We have discussed it in your original thread, but there are those who choose not to keep up there since it is now at well over 1,000 posts. Some of the points made are worth addressing here so that you may respond to them individually.

This is not an attack on you personally. This is for the benefit of assessing the one source of information we have about your claimed abilities. If you expect people to advise you and participate in testing (the IIG, for example), then it is only fair we make a determination about whether this is a waste of time or not.

I will divide these into multiple posts since it can get rather long. This one will deal with you claiming to be skeptical.

You say you are skeptical, but your actions betray your words. You created a website almost 18 months ago (www.VisionFromFeeling.com), which is not skeptical in the least. It does not mention cold reading but instead gives explanations about sensing vibrational information.

In this thread you have continued to offer explanations and have only conceded cold reading when pressed. You refer to opening a paranormal investigation when, in fact, you have never conducted an investigation into the "normal" and understood mechanisms which could explain your claims.

These are not the actions of a skeptic. In fact in an earlier post you said that you would consider "vivid imagination" only if you fail the test.

Early on you claimed to be able to diagnose from photos and video. You said that you detect ailments in celebrities, but that the readings weren't as strong. You solicited people to test and performed three tests (two medical readings by photo and one chemical detection by video).

You failed all three. After this, you refused to do any more tests. When pressed you say it is because you want to concentrate on the strongest claim, but clearly this is all part of the same claim. A skeptic would have explored this further.

More importantly, your explanation of vibrational information is wholly inconsistent with being able to do any readings with photos or videos. The mechanisms for capturing, storing, transmitting and displaying images is well understood. It is impossible to relay any molecular or vibrational information as you have described via photos or videos.

This alone is proof that your vibrational theory is wrong, yet you have not backed off from it. That is neither skeptical or rational behavior.

I believe you when you say that reading photos is more difficult than live people, photos of strangers. This is because you have very little information gathered by cold reading. Celebrities are easier because you see them more often and hear about them in the press.

A study with photos would be very easy to set up. With just a few volunteers here we could have numerous pictures of friends and family. You could then look at the photos and give your perceptions. It could be done in an evening.

A true skeptic would do this study to determine once and for all if photos are part of the claim or not. I challenge you to do this study.

In response to this post I ask that you not simply repeat your position that you are skeptical. We have heard that already. What I would like you to do is explain what specific actions you have taken that indicate that you are indeed skeptical.

For example, on your website you list some observations, which might appear to be a skeptical approach. However, you do not mention cold reading. In fact you say that some of things you detected were "seemingly impossible" to do by ordinary means. But since you only read people you know well (family and friends), cold reading is actually the probable means.

What specific actions have you taken that you consider to be skeptical?

[UncaYimmy]

Are you credible?

You claimed early on that you could do chemical identification, but that it, too, was weaker than reading live persons. Your first test involved 18 trials, but the three cups were uncovered, and you checked the results after each guess. You were advised how unreliable that was, but boasted significant results. There was no mention of effects on your health.

Your next test was actually a series of tests. You started with with a good protocol (five cups that were covered). However, despite the advice given, you still got the results after each guess.

You got the first two wrong, so you stopped the test and took off the covers. You got that one wrong, so you changed the protocol and removed one cup to better your odds. You quit after one trial.

Next you added a drop of water to the target cup and claimed that it was "VERY easy to detect the bacteria" but that you only guessed right two out of four trials. So you removed yet another cup. Suddenly your accuracy became much better, but you quit after getting two wrong in a row.

You claim it was because of fatigue and nausea, but how do we know if the inaccuracy came before or after? Every other time you failed twice in a row you changed the protocol. This time you quit.

You then told us for the first time, "A total of ten trials in a row seems to be the most I can do before becoming too uncomfortable to continue." After than you made several references to continuing to do chemical identification tests. When you didn't do the tests, you were called on it. At that point you began saying that you would not do anymore tests because it makes you sick. When it was suggested that you do just 5 trials each morning and evening for a week, you waffled and said you would only consider it.

You made a big deal about being able to detect a vasectomy in someone (friend or family member). This, of course, would make for an excellent test protocol considering that one in six men over age 35 in the USA has had one. Finding subjects would be easy. Visual cues would be minimal.

As we debated this issue, I pointed out the various surgical techniques involved in a vasectomy. Only in some cases is tissue removed. When the vas are cut, only sometimes are they are tied off, cauterized or clamped (with combinations thereof). Sometimes no cut is made and the vas are effectively crimped.

I pointed out that merely detecting "vasectomy" would not be sufficient based on your claim of detecting "missing tissue" in the one person you read. You refused to agree to provide any details besides vasectomy or no vasectomy.

After that you told us that in your "informal study" you failed to detect anyone else with a vasectomy, so you won't be tested on that. Thus another promising avenue of testing was closed.

You also told us you had multiple forms of synesthesia, but when pressed you indicated that you have never been tested. We suggested you go to a website (www.synesthete.org) that screens for synesthesia with on-line tests. You took multiple tests and only ranked as a possible synesthete in one of them. I am not a synesthete. I took two tests and was able to fool one of the tests and get a very high score.

As a defense for failing multiple tests, you claimed that you see two colors for some stimuli. It's a forced choice test where you are told each stimulus appears three times, so why didn't you just pick one color? But more importantly, you also stated the musical tones varied in pitch and threw you off. As a musician myself, I knew this not to be true. I verified this with a frequency analyzer. There was only the normal attack and decay in volume. You never addressed this incorrect statement.

Most recently someone offered to send you crushed and dyed (food coloring) samples of medicines so that you could identify them. After the person said everything was ready to be shipped, you requested unaltered pills for comparison.

And as already pointed out, you stopped doing the photo tests after your public failures. Your excuse, as usual, is that it is not part of your "main claim" about reading people in person.

Your behavior so far does not give me confidence that you will participate in any testing without backing out or asking for changes to the protocol. This sentiment is shared by others.

So, at this point, why should anyone take the time to test you?

[UncaYimmy]

This post is the most uncomfortable because we will be discussing whether you are rational and the possibility that you may be suffering from mental illness. Suffice it to say that I do not view mental illness as any different than high cholesterol - it's just another illness.

This has been a topic of discussion in the primary VFF thread, and you have actively engaged in diagnosing yourself. Therefore, I feel justified in bringing it up.

Let's start with something several people have asked me to ask you about. Do you believe you are human? You told us the following:

Quote:

I tried to join The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forum at http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/ but believe it or not they ask "Are you human?" and you have to answer "Yes" in order to register, so I couldn't do that and asked myself where is an extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star near Arcturus supposed to go and luckily Randi welcomes the opinions of all forms of life.

You also said, "After all, this ability comes from my Arcturian heritage." And there's this quote:

Quote:

As for my mention of Arcturian origins, there are many who feel that the concept of "Star People" fits with how they understand themselves, that it gives them a sense of identity that matches with their feelings, thoughts, experiences, personality. And again, there is nothing to be concerned of with this. If I didn't have this as part of my life I wouldn't be here today.

This indicates a strong disassociation from reality and causes me great concern, especially combined with other things you have said and done.

You claim to have seen ghosts and spoken with them. You claim to fear some of them and joke with others. You claim to talk with ghosts and hear them moving around. In one ghost story you said, "The girl started pushing on me with all her might, "Get out of my house!" And you know what? I was experiencing an actual physical push."

These could quite possibly be visual, auditory and physical hallucinations. You have also described tasting and smelling things that were not physically present. I am very concerned about this.

I also contend you are rejecting objective evidence and are unwilling to confront contradictory data. In fact you are quite evasive.

• You claimed you could read photos and video, but when met with failure, you dropped it down to just sometimes and quit testing altogether.
• You claimed you could identify chemicals, but then stopped testing when the results were less than accurate. This was only after repeatedly altering the protocol during one test until you could get the answers you wanted.
• You claimed you could do vibrational algebra, but now claim it is a mental process where you can determine the effects of say a medicine by applying its vibrational pattern to that of a human. No objective proof is forthcoming.
• You have made claims about advanced technology using light, but then became secretive that your idea might be stolen.
• You claimed to detect a vasectomy, but when you presented with an opportunity for an objective test, you claimed you could not detect any in your study at the mall.
• You refuse in general to test small and simple things and insist on only testing the most difficult and time-consuming claims.
• You refuse to involve your instructors who are experts in quantum mechanics.
• You claim to feel physically ill when failing tests.
• You continue to believe in some vibrational theory that has no objective evidence and has been proven extremely unlikely in that you claim to have done readings from photos and videos.
• You claim that the musical notes on a synesthesia test vary in pitch when it has been proven they don't.

In your self-diagnosis you posted the following including a quote from a site describing symptoms of mental illness.

Quote:

Quote:

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

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

You say there is no belief in your perceptions, but your actions speak otherwise. In personal conversations you have spoken about winning the Nobel prize for proving your abilities. You seemed very serious and excited about this. You've created a website and have requested two skeptic groups assist you in testing a paranormal claim as well as soliciting people here. You have advised someone to see a doctor based on what you saw. You offer scientific explanations and claim the ability comes from your Arcturian heritage. That's acting on a belief.

Even more troubling is that in our private conversation you asked me if I was "serious" about you possibly having delusions. You asked this despite my public writing of a few thousand words on the subject and sharing my personal experiences with depression. Not only do you believe that you could not possibly have a problem, but you don't believe that others really believe you do. Do you think those of us expressing concern are making it up for some reason?

You can certainly attempt to explain away each of these things. And each one taken alone might mean nothing. But you need to look at entire picture. There are numerous minor and major areas of concern.

Sure, many things are red. Many things have a peel. Many things taste sweet and sour. Many are as big as your fist. Many things grow on trees. Many things have black seeds. But at some point you gotta start thinking apple.

You attend a university. They have affordable health care. Will you at least take the posts from this thread to a mental health professional for an assessment? Alternately, if I, on my own dime, take this to a mental health professional, will you see a professional on your own if he or she makes that recommendation?

I, for one, am starting to worry about what might happen if you actually take a formal test and fail. If in fact you truly these abilities are due to your Arcturian heritage, then this could shake your foundation to the core.

And, yes, I am being serious.

[UncaYimmy]

As you have indicated elsewhere, your college is starting the new semester, so your time will be limited. Which thread you choose to answer is entirely up to you. It has been suggested that you go in chronological order when choosing your responses, but it's up to you. Your responsiveness aside, here's what I see:

I have re-read many of your posts including those in this thread. I do not believe this is some charade. I do not believe you are deliberately making up stories for attention and/or profit. I believe that you genuinely believe that you have some special ability.

You do not.

Unexplained Accuracy
Unexplained accuracy is the foundation of your supernatural belief. You believe you are unique on this planet because you have gathered accurate medical knowledge without using any means known to mankind. This has gone on for over a decade, and you've built up elaborate explanations around it.

There's a major problem, though. The apparent accuracy can easily be explained.

Everything you have personally verified to be "accurate" could have been learned by observation and/or conversation with your subjects, virtually of whom you have described as close friends and family. The one exception is your story about detecting cysts in a woman you met at work your first day only to find out the accuracy a few months later when she announced her upcoming surgery. The NIH says, "Most women have [ovarian cysts] sometime during their lives" so your detection is not noteworthy and subject to confirmation bias.

I have witnessed personally (two extensive Facebook chats) your charm and persistence when you don't get the answer you want. We have all seen your persistence and tactics in the main thread in attempting to get people to agree with you. We have also seen you turn misses into hits, but you don't believe you are doing so. Therefore, any answers you receive from other people about your readings are suspect at best. Thus your accuracy is questionable.

But even if you were 100% accurate, it is easily explainable and has been explained to you several times.

The reason your ability is so unreliable (you say you don't always read people) is because it requires everyday, plain old knowledge. You went into to great detail about a vasectomy you detected and explained how the vibrations told you tissue was missing. Then you performed a "survey" at the mall and couldn't detect any vasectomies. Why do you think that is? Why do you think such an advanced and detailed ability is so unreliable?

So What About the Imagery?
You have a vivid imagination. We have discussed this before. In your mind you can see ordinary things in great detail. You *want* to see them. You say the imagery gives you pleasure. You said that you didn't like Zener cards when you experimented with them because they were dull and lifeless. You wanted to envision animals with "wet noses" and "soft fur" instead.

When I asked you if you knew what a Labrador retriever was, you excitedly told me how you visualized the animal in great detail. This is what you are doing with the medical information you describe seeing in other people: creating images to match the information.

You say the imagery varies in strength based on some theory you invented about the strength of vibrational information. The reason it varies is that the more confident you are, the more your mind can use to create the imagery. When you have to "search" for information, it's like trying to remember something. You have to concentrate. If you think you might know something, you get a weak image.

In regards to the imagery only being of health problems you say, "I believe that my brain's processing and selection of information detects and notices this information among other information."

You're right, except that your brain is picking out knowledge not from vibrational information but from ordinary information - observations and conversations. This is why you have to see people to "download" information. This is why you needed to take the lid off the cups to get any semblance of accuracy in identifying chemicals. This is why reading photos failed - they were strangers.

The images come from the information and your imagination, not vibrational information at the subatomic level. You do not have a special ability.

Why Is This Happening? Pop Psychology by UncaYimmy
First, there's the need for attention. It is painfully obvious to everyone but yourself that this is a major issue with you. You talk about winning the Nobel prize. You don't want to share information that others might steal. And you have written thousands of words trying to convince people you are special before you ever once questioned yourself.

You have told me that you want to do good things in the world, which seems to coincide with the Arcturian thing you have going. Look at what your ability can do. In humans it only detects health problems. The worse the problem, the more it sticks out, sometimes to the point where you can't avoid it.

You can use your ability to possibly cure cancer or treat flesh eating bacteria. You sense how "non-aggressive" vultures and amphibians are. You can sense how insects communicate.

You've concocted a fantasy with yourself at the center. In this fantasy you help everyone around you and become famous in the process. You sense the "bad" and the "good" in the world that nobody else can.

Without agreeing or disagreeing, can you objectively see how a reasonable person could conclude what I have concluded about you?

[UncaYimmy]

Since the original Vision From Feeling thread has been closed, you can no longer use the volume of posts there as an excuse to not reply in this thread. You have also told us that you will be off from school next week for spring break, so your studies will no longer be an excuse.

Please take the time to respond to this thread. If you no longer wish to participate, then please have the courtesy to say as much. It can then be removed from moderated status so others can post their comments on what has been discussed.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Reply to your post #8;

Quote:

You have brought up being a rational and skeptical person, so I feel in that sense it is fair game as a subject. Even if you hadn't, you are the only person providing data about your claims regarding the events that have led to this discussion. Therefore, your credibility is an issue. We have discussed it in your original thread, but there are those who choose not to keep up there since it is now at well over 1,000 posts. Some of the points made are worth addressing here so that you may respond to them individually.

This is not an attack on you personally. This is for the benefit of assessing the one source of information we have about your claimed abilities. If you expect people to advise you and participate in testing (the IIG, for example), then it is only fair we make a determination about whether this is a waste of time or not.

I will divide these into multiple posts since it can get rather long. This one will deal with you claiming to be skeptical.

You say you are skeptical, but your actions betray your words. You created a website almost 18 months ago (www.VisionFromFeeling.com), which is not skeptical in the least. It does not mention cold reading but instead gives explanations about sensing vibrational information.

My website gives a description of what I perceive and I have updated it and added other possible explanations to the phenomenon. I strongly acknowledge one possible explanation being unintentional cold reading that translates on its own into medical images and information. I describe my experience of sensing vibrational information, more as a description of how I experience it and not as a final conclusion or even main hypothesis.

Quote:

In this thread you have continued to offer explanations and have only conceded cold reading when pressed. You refer to opening a paranormal investigation when, in fact, you have never conducted an investigation into the "normal" and understood mechanisms which could explain your claims.

I do not need to be pressed to mention or consider cold reading as a possible explanation. It is among my top hypotheses for this phenomenon of perceiving medical images and information. I am conducting a paranormal investigation, and I regret if its progress is slow or if I am going about it in a way that you do not agree with. Part of exploring the normal as opposed to paranormal hypotheses is disabling the use of normal sources of information one at a time during the study and observing how the results in accuracy are affected.

Quote:

These are not the actions of a skeptic. In fact in an earlier post you said that you would consider "vivid imagination" only if you fail the test.

I do believe I am conducting my investigation in a manner that is consistent with both being a paranormal claimant as well as being skeptical in my study of it. If I said I would consider vivid imagination as the explanation only if I fail a test, that means that I can only take vivid imagination as the final conclusion and answer if that is proven to be the case. However I consider it among the hypotheses throughout this investigation.

Quote:

Early on you claimed to be able to diagnose from photos and video. You said that you detect ailments in celebrities, but that the readings weren't as strong. You solicited people to test and performed three tests (two medical readings by photo and one chemical detection by video).

You failed all three. After this, you refused to do any more tests. When pressed you say it is because you want to concentrate on the strongest claim, but clearly this is all part of the same claim. A skeptic would have explored this further.

My claim that I am investigating is medical perceptions from people who are in the same room with me. It is not the same as the experience of medical perception from pictures or video. I do know that I have some form of synesthesia because I perceive color and shapes from physics equations and synesthesia is non-paranormal. I am investigating my main claim, the other aspects of perceptions I am not investigating.

Quote:

More importantly, your explanation of vibrational information is wholly inconsistent with being able to do any readings with photos or videos. The mechanisms for capturing, storing, transmitting and displaying images is well understood. It is impossible to relay any molecular or vibrational information as you have described via photos or videos.

This alone is proof that your vibrational theory is wrong, yet you have not backed off from it. That is neither skeptical or rational behavior.

I believe you when you say that reading photos is more difficult than live people, photos of strangers. This is because you have very little information gathered by cold reading. Celebrities are easier because you see them more often and hear about them in the press.

Possibly, but I am still investigating my main claim. And what would that accomplish, since my main claim would continue as before?

Quote:

A study with photos would be very easy to set up. With just a few volunteers here we could have numerous pictures of friends and family. You could then look at the photos and give your perceptions. It could be done in an evening.

A true skeptic would do this study to determine once and for all if photos are part of the claim or not. I challenge you to do this study.

I already know that photos are not part of the claim. I do not need to do anything further to emphasize that. I have consistently said that my claim is medical perceptions from people in the same room as me.

Quote:

In response to this post I ask that you not simply repeat your position that you are skeptical. We have heard that already. What I would like you to do is explain what specific actions you have taken that indicate that you are indeed skeptical.

By not assuming that my medical perceptions are real regardless of their apparent accuracy and many interesting cases and by investigating the perceptions and involving skeptics and scientists in the study I consider myself a skeptic with regard to my experience of medical perceptions.

Quote:

For example, on your website you list some observations, which might appear to be a skeptical approach. However, you do not mention cold reading. In fact you say that some of things you detected were "seemingly impossible" to do by ordinary means. But since you only read people you know well (family and friends), cold reading is actually the probable means.

Most of the friends listed on the medical perceptions page were people I had just met that same day. Do not argue that they are not my friends, we became friends and still are but I had just met them.

Quote:

What specific actions have you taken that you consider to be skeptical?

Answered above.

[UncaYimmy]

Before I get started, I want to clarify that by cold reading I am referring to information one can gather just by observing someone as well as information gathered from conversations.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Reply to your post #8;
My website gives a description of what I perceive and I have updated it and added other possible explanations to the phenomenon. I strongly acknowledge one possible explanation being unintentional cold reading that translates on its own into medical images and information. I describe my experience of sensing vibrational information, more as a description of how I experience it and not as a final conclusion or even main hypothesis.

I strongly disagree that you "strongly acknowledge" anything besides a paranormal ability. The very first sentence of the page entitled "About My Paranormal Ability" reads, "When I look at people, I see images in my mind of the inside of their bodies. I see organs, tissues, cells, and chemicals, and even what I call the vibrational level inside the atoms."

Quote:

I do not need to be pressed to mention or consider cold reading as a possible explanation. It is among my top hypotheses for this phenomenon of perceiving medical images and information. I am conducting a paranormal investigation ...

Those are mere words. You have not tested cold reading. Instead you have embarked on a "study" that everyone here agrees is a waste of time. If cold reading were actually a serious contender in your mind, you would test for it immediately rather than "study" what abilities you have.

Quote:

Part of exploring the normal as opposed to paranormal hypotheses is disabling the use of normal sources of information one at a time during the study and observing how the results in accuracy are affected.

The proper way to "study" it is to eliminate all "normal sources" and see if you can actually do what you think you can do. If you can't, then you can stop all the "paranormal claimant" stuff and try to figure out why you're imagining all these things you claim.

All that said, you have presented no evidence thus far to even justify performing any kind of test. There is no data to be explained.

Quote:

If I said I would consider vivid imagination as the explanation only if I fail a test, that means that I can only take vivid imagination as the final conclusion and answer if that is proven to be the case. However I consider it among the hypotheses throughout this investigation.

Then test for it - no study required.

Quote:

My claim that I am investigating is medical perceptions from people who are in the same room with me. It is not the same as the experience of medical perception from pictures or video.

You repeatedly made claims that you could make readings from pictures and video. You even offered to be tested on it. You failed. You claimed you could identify chemicals. When tested, you failed.

You can pretend like these are different claims, but they are not. Unless, of course, you are to have us believe that your origins as a "star person" have given you numerous superhuman gifts that include:
* Seeing inside the human body
* Smelling inside the human body
* Hearing inside the human body
* Analyzing plants via vibrational information
* Analyzing bacteria via vibrational information
* Understanding how insects communicate
* Sensing animals
* Sensing a Bigfoot like creature
* Detecting what somebody recently ate
* Tasting what others are currently eating
* Detecting a full bladder
* Detecting color blindness
* Telepathy
* Remote smelling
* Chemical identification
* Getting intoxicated ("high") by looking at an intoxicating substance in a microscope
* Seeing ghosts (like Ben Franklin or Revolutionary Battle Sites)
* Talking to ghosts
* Physically touching ghosts
* Identifying crystals supernaturally

To me, most if not all of these things are related to your paranormal claim. I mean, how incredibly special do you think you are?

Quote:

I do know that I have some form of synesthesia because I perceive color and shapes from physics equations and synesthesia is non-paranormal.

No, you do not "know" that. As pointed out before, you failed synesthesia screening tests that were easily passed fraudulently (I did it). You have never been tested. Furthermore, you never mentioned colors and shapes in regards to mathematics in any of the lengthy discussions we had previously. It wasn't until you saw the Discovery Channel episode about Daniel Tammet that you began claiming you had synesthesia similar to him.

At this point I wonder if you are lying or merely adopting new fantasies. Regardless, synesthesia does not explain any of your claims.

Quote:

I already know that photos are not part of the claim. I do not need to do anything further to emphasize that. I have consistently said that my claim is medical perceptions from people in the same room as me.

What does that mean? You "know" that photos are not part of the claim? They were most certainly part of the claim when you wrote, "I do detect information about the health of people on television, although this occurs more often than with photos, and has also been confirmed as accurate many times."

When tested here, you failed. That is when you dropped it from your claim, but you have never renounced the ability. You have never once said, "I am not able to do readings from photos or videos. I was mistaken about my ability. This casts doubts on my ability to read people in person since I sensed and saw the same things."

BTW, why didn't you "study" that ability or your chemical detection abilities? You were happy to test them. Only after failing the tests did you did you decide to drop that avenue of investigation. This is yet another reason why it your "study" looks like you are avoiding a real test.

Quote:

By not assuming that my medical perceptions are real regardless of their apparent accuracy and many interesting cases and by investigating the perceptions and involving skeptics and scientists in the study I consider myself a skeptic with regard to my experience of medical perceptions.

If you say that a dog's tail counts as a leg, how many legs does a normal dog have? The answer is four. Just because you call it a leg doesn't make it one.

You most certainly regard your perceptions as real. The tens of thousands of words you have written are evidence of that. Your website is evidence of that. Heck, reading the first few posts in this thread are clear evidence. Only when pushed do you wiggle on the hook and claim you don't believe they are real. You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. It's certainly not believable.

C'mon, Anita, who goes out on the city streets soliciting strangers for "readings" (your study with the skeptic volunteers) if they don't believe it's real? Who asks people to pay travel expenses for you to come out and be tested or do psychic readings if they don't believe it's real?

Quote:

Most of the friends listed on the medical perceptions page were people I had just met that same day. Do not argue that they are not my friends, we became friends and still are but I had just met them.

That's interesting. You claim only to do readings for close friends and family members, but now you say most of the people you read were people you just met. I know, I know. You are close friends with people you just met.

Anyway, what you don't acknowledge is how much you can learn about the health of a person just by observing them. Obviously you spoke with them and spent enough time to feel "close" to them before being comfortable enough to do the reading. There is an incredible amount of information that can be learned that short period of time. Charlatans do it all the time as do ordinary but astute observers.

For example, a man over 35 (or is it 40?) has a 1:6 chance of having a vasectomy. Simple comments like, "Trust me, I'm never having kids!" or "No way we are having anymore kids" would probably bump the odds up quite a bit. Other ailments and pains are easily seen.

Eliminate all of the "normal sources" at once and see if you can still "see organs, tissues, cells, and chemicals, and even what I call the vibrational level inside the atoms." It's simple and elegant.