More Vision From Feeling claims

Ashles · 31st March 2009, 11:36 AM

Anita has claimed the following:

Quote:

I can look at a flower from inside a car and perceive its scent to a most wonderful extent, even flowers that we don't smell with our noses. I walk by the aisles at a store and can look at the foods and perceive what they taste like. It is a wonderful and rich experience and perception of the world.

Anita, would you be able to perform such feats in a test situation?

Rairun · 31st March 2009, 12:37 PM

You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences "seems to be very similar to synesthesia." It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same.

VisionFromFeeling · 31st March 2009, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Rairun

You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same.

No, the experience is not triggered by the shape, but by... ermh... am... how do I say this without starting it all up again? Em... it is the vibrational information that I feel shimmering around the flowers, that comes from the molecules that make the scent molecules. And my mind translates the vibrational pattern into corresponding scent. There! I said it!

But Ashles, right now I'd like to try to test the medical perceptions. Nothing else at the moment.

skeen · 31st March 2009, 12:47 PM

No, it is not taken out of context at all. I wouldn't even bother to try to link her claims with scientific possibilities - this is a woman who has seen dinosaur ghosts, spoken with the ghost of Benjamin Franklin, and is an extra-terrestrial.

I think that at this point, there have been so many posts made (thousands), that we're just going round and round and round in circles. There's going to be a whole new group of posters who just don't know about Anita's previous claims, and what people have gone through in getting her to perform any kind of a reasonable test.

tsig · 31st March 2009, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by skeen

No, it is not taken out of context at all. I wouldn't even bother to try to link her claims with scientific possibilities - this is a woman who has seen dinosaur ghosts, spoken with the ghost of Benjamin Franklin, and is an extra-terrestrial.

I think that at this point, there have been so many posts made (thousands), that we're just going round and round and round in circles. There's going to be a whole new group of posters who just don't know about Anita's previous claims, and what people have gone through in getting her to perform any kind of a reasonable test.

It's that sucker born every minute thing.

Madalch · 31st March 2009, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Rairun

It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

No, the experience is not triggered by the shape, but by... ermh... am... how do I say this without starting it all up again? Em... it is the vibrational information that I feel shimmering around the flowers, that comes from the molecules that make the scent molecules. And my mind translates the vibrational pattern into corresponding scent.

Which means that trying to "smell" the difference between real flowers and synthetic ones from a distance, and with glass in the way, should make an excellent test without involving medical tests.

Kariboo · 31st March 2009, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Madalch

Which means that trying to "smell" the difference between real flowers and synthetic ones from a distance, and with glass in the way, should make an excellent test without involving medical tests.

It would, but she just stated that she doesn't want to do so,

To VFf: why??

skeen · 31st March 2009, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Madalch

Which means that trying to "smell" the difference between real flowers and synthetic ones from a distance, and with glass in the way, should make an excellent test without involving medical tests.

You just proposed a very simple test, that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Anita has some kind of a paranormal ability; a test that would garner worldwide media attention, and essentially make Anita a millionaire.

And if you think for even a second that she would do it, you must be very new to her claims.

VisionFromFeeling · 31st March 2009, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Madalch

Which means that trying to "smell" the difference between real flowers and synthetic ones from a distance, and with glass in the way, should make an excellent test without involving medical tests.

Madalch! I didn't recognize you without the green creature picture! As always, when Madalch does post, it is brilliant. This is a wonderful test, and I would do it!

How do we make flowers that are visually indistinguishable from real ones?

skeen · 31st March 2009, 01:10 PM

I predict this test will be complete by the end of this week. I kid, I kid. It will never happen. Or, Anita will skew the protocol to the extent that not a single forum member thinks it will be productive...again.

Kariboo · 31st March 2009, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

How do we make flowers that are visually indistinguishable from real ones?

http://www.silkflowers.com/listprodu...e=1&view=large

Ernie M · 31st March 2009, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Madalch! I didn't recognize you without the green creature picture! As always, when Madalch does post, it is brilliant. This is a wonderful test, and I would do it!

How do we make flowers that are visually indistinguishable from real ones?

Want good looking fake flowers? Buy some.

A simple Internet search for silk flowers will show among others:
http://www.silkflowers.com/
http://www.silkfever.com/

Are you sure you are a college student?

bonavada · 31st March 2009, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Madalch

......without involving medical tests.

or a great deal of expense.

ETA. Fruit: Do VfF's remote olfactory talents extend to fruit? Those examples along with the flowers look very realistic

BV

Uncayimmy · 31st March 2009, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Rairun

You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences "seems to be very similar to synesthesia." It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same.

Just so you know, she took a battery of screening tests for synesthesia - tests designed to capture as many potential synesthetes as possible. In all but one test she failed to get through the screening. One test indicated a possibility of one type of synesthesia, but it was not a strong possibility.

As a control I manipulated my answers and passed the screening with an extremely strong likelihood of having synesthesia.

Furthermore, you should take some time to read the threads because it is YOU, not Ashles, who is taking things out of context. If we're going to talk about Anita smelling flowers at a distance, the proper context should include this quote from the Interview thread:

Quote:

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,

bonavada · 31st March 2009, 01:59 PM

From what I understand of UncaYimmy's quoted text above. VfF claims she can distinguish between different molecules by their "vibrational aspect" Is this true?

If so, who needs flowers? Just mince up twenty different types of stuff, slap it in seperate sealed jars and a way to go.

BV

GeeMack · 31st March 2009, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by bonavada

From what I understand of UncaYimmy's quoted text above. VfF claims she can distinguish between different molecules by their "vibrational aspect" Is this true?

If so, who needs flowers? Just mince up twenty different types of stuff, slap it in seperate sealed jars and a way to go.

It's been done with 5 types of stuff. She failed 100%. There is pretty much only one thing she doesn't fail to do with some consistency. She treats people who invest some effort into helping her like crap.

Kariboo · 31st March 2009, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by bonavada

From what I understand of UncaYimmy's quoted text above. VfF claims she can distinguish between different molecules by their "vibrational aspect" Is this true?

If so, who needs flowers? Just mince up twenty different types of stuff, slap it in seperate sealed jars and a way to go.

BV

You can look up her lactobacillus test on her website

Also the test Pup and she agreed on with 5 medications

edona7 · 31st March 2009, 02:43 PM

Knowing how much attention feeds VfF's delusions, why do we keep on 'feeding the troll,' so to speak? The more attention she gets, the more she will write, the more 'abilities' she will create, and the more likely she is to actually try practicing her 'medical diagnostics' on real people, for fun and profit.

Clarissa

desertgal · 31st March 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Madalch! I didn't recognize you without the green creature picture! As always, when Madalch does post, it is brilliant. This is a wonderful test, and I would do it!

How do we make flowers that are visually indistinguishable from real ones?

And the dance begins again:

"This is a wonderful test, and I would do it...except, only, but..."

Rairun · 31st March 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

No, the experience is not triggered by the shape, but by... ermh... am... how do I say this without starting it all up again? Em... it is the vibrational information that I feel shimmering around the flowers, that comes from the molecules that make the scent molecules. And my mind translates the vibrational pattern into corresponding scent. There! I said it!

But Ashles, right now I'd like to try to test the medical perceptions. Nothing else at the moment.

Then I have to agree with everybody else. You see, I'm not saying that you don't see something you call "vibrational information." It's possible that you do. The problem here is that you are changing your explanations around. You seemed to be treating it as a subjective experience only, something you "feel shimmering around the flowers." Now you are also saying that it "comes from the molecules that make the scent molecules." That's most definitely a claim that can be tested. And if those experience follow the same principles as your medical "perceptions", why would you not test them?

Uncayimmy · 31st March 2009, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by bonavada

From what I understand of UncaYimmy's quoted text above. VfF claims she can distinguish between different molecules by their "vibrational aspect" Is this true?

If so, who needs flowers? Just mince up twenty different types of stuff, slap it in seperate sealed jars and a way to go.

BV

Ya think?

We've been though all of this many times before. She's all gung ho about doing a test until it actually comes time to do it, and then the excuses start. Go read the interview thread. It's all been covered before. Here's an example from very early on:

Quote:

You [VFF] 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.

As you can see, we've been there and done that. What's interesting is that Anita allegedly gets sick after identifying 10 trials of identifying a single chemicals, but she can easily spend 20 minutes scanning a person's body. Of course, those are different skills, right?

It has been months now. Anita could have done hundreds of trials a few at a time without being sick. We would have an answer.

But we don't.

technoextreme · 31st March 2009, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by bonavada

From what I understand of UncaYimmy's quoted text above. VfF claims she can distinguish between different molecules by their "vibrational aspect" Is this true?

BV

Hey hey hey. I can do that to. Admittedly, I need a quarter of a million dollars worth of equipment but hey I can do it.

Jeff Corey · 31st March 2009, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Rairun

You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences "seems to be very similar to synesthesia." It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same.

It's not "pretty obvious" at all. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything is happening here. Making up "some sort of reconstruction in her brain triggered by the sight of flowers" to explain something that most likely does not occur is futile.

Rairun · 31st March 2009, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

It's not "pretty obvious" at all. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything is happening here. Making up "some sort of reconstruction in her brain triggered by the sight of flowers" to explain something that most likely does not occur is futile.

No, it was pretty obvious if you read her whole post. She was talking about synesthesia and how she doesn't claim those olfactory perceptions are linked to the actual smell of foods or flowers. The problem here seems to be that she writes a perfectly reasonable post, and then five minutes later she makes a much more extraordinary claim while denying she's shifting positions.

bonavada · 31st March 2009, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

Ya think?
We've been though all of this many times before. She's all gung ho about doing a test until it actually comes time to do it, and then the excuses start. Go read the interview thread. It's all been covered before. Here's an example from very early on:
As you can see, we've been there and done that. What's interesting is that Anita allegedly gets sick after identifying 10 trials of identifying a single chemicals, but she can easily spend 20 minutes scanning a person's body. Of course, those are different skills, right?
It has been months now. Anita could have done hundreds of trials a few at a time without being sick. We would have an answer.
But we don't.

That'll teach me to dive in withough a lifejacket.

I shall take a look through all your gubbins and refrain from being so cocksure.

Thanks

BV

Skeptical Greg · 31st March 2009, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Madalch! I didn't recognize you without the green creature picture! As always, when Madalch does post, it is brilliant. This is a wonderful test, and I would do it!

How do we make flowers that are visually indistinguishable from real ones?

Why don't you just use images, since you claim that images of drugs get you high ?

Moochie · 31st March 2009, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Rairun

You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences "seems to be very similar to synesthesia." It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same.

I think it would be fair if you allow the person making the claim to explain, don't you? Unless she asked you to work on her behalf. The both of you joined within a couple months of each other, so the skeptics+cynics here might suspect you were in cahoots, if not actually the same person.

M.

Rairun · 31st March 2009, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Moochie

I think it would be fair if you allow the person making the claim to explain, don't you? Unless she asked you to work on her behalf. The both of you joined within a couple months of each other, so the skeptics+cynics here might suspect you were in cahoots, if not actually the same person.

M.

I don't think you've bothered to read my other posts in this thread, let alone all my posts in this board.

Moochie · 31st March 2009, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Rairun

I don't think you've bothered to read my other posts in this thread, let alone all my posts in this board.

I hadn't read your other posts in this thread because I'd just discovered the thread and was reading my way through it. I apologize if I've mischaracterized you, which appears a distinct possibility now that I've read the entire thread.

And no, I don't recall seeing any of your posts outside of this thread, but then, you haven't made a great many posts. Again, apologies.

M.

desertgal · 31st March 2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Rairun

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

It's not "pretty obvious" at all. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything is happening here. Making up "some sort of reconstruction in her brain triggered by the sight of flowers" to explain something that most likely does not occur is futile.

No, it was pretty obvious if you read her whole post. She was talking about synesthesia and how she doesn't claim those olfactory perceptions are linked to the actual smell of foods or flowers. The problem here seems to be that she writes a perfectly reasonable post, and then five minutes later she makes a much more extraordinary claim while denying she's shifting positions.

You have to know the history behind this to understand what Jeff is referring to.

The only person who thinks Anita has synesthesia is Anita. She refuses to be formally diagnosed-because no doctor can diagnose what isn't there, and it would reveal her fantasy-and, as Unca Yimmy pointed out: "Just so you know, she took a battery of screening tests for synesthesia - tests designed to capture as many potential synesthetes as possible. In all but one test she failed to get through the screening. One test indicated a possibility of one type of synesthesia, but it was not a strong possibility."

So, when she makes up a description of a fictitious ability, she tailors the details to fit within the parameters of synesthesia.

It's called "hoax synesthesia". The symptoms are right, but, in this case, it doesn't actually exist.

There's no sense pretending that any of Anita's claims are genuine. She's just here to yank everyone's chain, gather more attention for herself, and perpetuate what is, basically, a fraud. If she can get even one person to believe her claims, then that validates her fantasy, but it really doesn't matter if we believe her or not. We're paying attention to her, and that is the result she craves.

Remember, the real world "is a very dull and boring place", and, when possible, retreating into a delusional fantasy where she can "experience a richer world of perception than do most" is her preference. That is what she does here, and on her website.

And I shall go back to ignoring her nonsense here.

Madalch · 31st March 2009, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by skeen

You just proposed a very simple test, that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Anita has some kind of a paranormal ability; a test that would garner worldwide media attention, and essentially make Anita a millionaire.

And if you think for even a second that she would do it, you must be very new to her claims.

I'm not new to her claims, actually- I tried testing her at one point, but stopped paying attention when she claimed to prefer medical tests to easy-to-set-up-and-administer chemical ones.

Akhenaten · 1st April 2009, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by Rairun

You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences "seems to be very similar to synesthesia." It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Rairun

Then I have to agree with everybody else. You see, I'm not saying that you don't see something you call "vibrational information." It's possible that you do. The problem here is that you are changing your explanations around. You seemed to be treating it as a subjective experience only, something you "feel shimmering around the flowers." Now you are also saying that it "comes from the molecules that make the scent molecules." That's most definitely a claim that can be tested. And if those experience follow the same principles as your medical "perceptions", why would you not test them?

Originally Posted by Rairun

No, it was pretty obvious if you read her whole post. She was talking about synesthesia and how she doesn't claim those olfactory perceptions are linked to the actual smell of foods or flowers. The problem here seems to be that she writes a perfectly reasonable post, and then five minutes later she makes a much more extraordinary claim while denying she's shifting positions.

Originally Posted by Rairun

I don't think you've bothered to read my other posts in this thread, let alone all my posts in this board.

Well, that sounded like a challenge, so I took it up.

I set aside a few hours and read through all your contributions to the thread and I have quoted them above, in their entirety, for the assistance of those who might wish to falsify the following hypothesis:

You don't know what you're talking about.

Rairun · 1st April 2009, 11:40 AM

Oh, come on. Did you even read those posts? Let me walk you through this:

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

What I experience seems to be very similar to synesthesia, which, by definition is not a mental illness and typically not even a handicap.

I experience a richer world of perception than do most. When I look at a page of physics equations, it comes to life in my mind, not as rows of variables but as shapes, colors, patterns and vibrational aspects, that interact on their own in my mind to show the results of their interaction, that I then translate back into physical significance. When I look at the abbreviated letters of chemical elements, they are not just letters, they are color, shape, and vibration.

Here she seems to be aware that those "vibrations" aren't inherent in the physics equations, and that they are simply artifacts produced by her brain. If not, there would be no rational reason for her to compare it to synesthesia at all.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

And when I look at human bodies, I perceive vibrational information, that translates on its own in my mind into images of human tissue, felt perception of pain or discomfort, heartbeat, swallowing or breathing. I can look at a flower from inside a car and perceive its scent to a most wonderful extent, even flowers that we don't smell with our noses. I walk by the aisles at a store and can look at the foods and perceive what they taste like. It is a wonderful and rich experience and perception of the world. It does nothing to harm me, or others. I have the ordinary perception as well, and can distinguish between the two. It does not interfere with my understanding of the world otherwise, as a very dull and boring place as seen by others. And I conclude my perceptions to be subjective to me, knowing that others don't see or feel what I do, as opposed to immediately assuming them to be reality-based or "extrasensory" - with the possible exception of the medical perceptions which have shown some compelling correlation.

The passage in bold confirms my impressions above: she says that her perceptions are subjective, and that there is no correlation whatsoever between the images she sees in her head and the actual scent of the flowers. She even contrasts the flowers with her medical perceptions, which she suspects to show some correlation.

Having that in mind, are you still going to deny that it was not reasonable for me to have said: "You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences 'seems to be very similar to synesthesia.' It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same"?

I stand by what I said. It's impossible to interpret her words in any other way. She didn't make that point just once. She repeated herself several times:

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I have not claimed to experience the actual taste of foods as I walk by them. All I said was that that is what I experience.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

My accounts of tasting food when I walk by is not a claim. It is a description. And I don't think you should be too quick to judge it as outrageous, it is just what I perceive. Like someone saying that they feel good when they listen to music. Would you ask them to prove it? With brainscanning and endocrine measurements perhaps? Just an experience, nothing else.

That sounded reasonable to me, and still does. But then she went on to say:

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

No, the experience is not triggered by the shape, but by... ermh... am... how do I say this without starting it all up again? Em... it is the vibrational information that I feel shimmering around the flowers, that comes from the molecules that make the scent molecules. And my mind translates the vibrational pattern into corresponding scent. There! I said it!

Can you not see that she shifted positions here? "Just an experience, and nothing else" became "just an experience, and vibrational patterns from scent molecules that humans can't see." That's why I said:

Originally Posted by Rairun

No, it was pretty obvious if you read her whole post. She was talking about synesthesia and how she doesn't claim those olfactory perceptions are linked to the actual smell of foods or flowers. The problem here seems to be that she writes a perfectly reasonable post, and then five minutes later she makes a much more extraordinary claim while denying she's shifting positions.

There you go. Your hypothesis is falsified.

Furthermore, if I proposed a challenge at all, it had nothing to do with the truth of the points I made here. It was about the accusation that I was in fact VisionFromFeeling under a different name.

Skeptical Greg · 1st April 2009, 11:42 AM

Sad how Anita has members fighting each other ..

Must be a new divide and conquer strategy ..

Rairun · 1st April 2009, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Moochie

I hadn't read your other posts in this thread because I'd just discovered the thread and was reading my way through it. I apologize if I've mischaracterized you, which appears a distinct possibility now that I've read the entire thread.

And no, I don't recall seeing any of your posts outside of this thread, but then, you haven't made a great many posts. Again, apologies.

M.

It's okay. No worries.

Jeff Corey · 1st April 2009, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Rairun

...Having that in mind, are you still going to deny that it was not reasonable for me to have said: "You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences 'seems to be very similar to synesthesia.' It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same"?

I stand by what I said. It's impossible to interpret her words in any other way. She didn't make that point just once. She repeated herself several times:...

You are making the assumption that she actually perceives a scent and then you try to explain it. Without that unjustified assumption, there is nothing to explain.

Ashles · 1st April 2009, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

No, the experience is not triggered by the shape, but by... ermh... am... how do I say this without starting it all up again? Em... it is the vibrational information that I feel shimmering around the flowers, that comes from the molecules that make the scent molecules. And my mind translates the vibrational pattern into corresponding scent. There! I said it!

But Ashles, right now I'd like to try to test the medical perceptions. Nothing else at the moment.

I thought I'd set up this thread to illustrate the frustrations inherent dealing with Anita. I knew she would not agree to testing for this new claim, I was just curious what excuse she would use. But she doesn't even bother with excuses now. Just a simple No I don't want to.

She made a clear paranormal claim, and even followed up with comments to clarify it was a paranormal claim.

It is easily testable and in a way that would produce clear results that would not require any level of interpretation. It would either demonstrate the ability or a lack of it.

Yet she refuses, without explanation, to conduct such a test, preferring to focus on the poorly defined and hard to test medical claims.

She could demonstrate this flower or taste ability by the end of the week. She could demonstrate, above the levels of chance, an ability that defies current scientific knowledge.

But no, she would much rather spend pages and pages reiterating old claims and saying what she is planning to do at some point in the future.

It just doesn't make sense from someone who really believes they can do such things.

Rairun · 1st April 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

You are making the assumption that she actually perceives a scent and then you try to explain it. Without that unjustified assumption, there is nothing to explain.

A hallucination isn't exactly an extraordinary claim. She could be lying, but that would be like me saying that I have a cat (I do not). It just doesn't matter. I would only demand to see brain scans if I cared about her mundane experiences. My point here is that I'm only interested in evidence for her extraordinary claims. I don't care whether she has hallucinations, or if she is Swedish, or anything else.

Jeff Corey · 1st April 2009, 12:23 PM

Rairun,
You seem to have missed my point, again. If she doesn't have these sensations, there is no need to explain them.
None.

Rairun · 1st April 2009, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

Rairun,
You seem to have missed my point, again. If she doesn't have these sensations, there is no need to explain them.
None.

No, you seem to have missed mine. :P I said it's irrelevant whether or not she has those sensations. Initially, she insisted that she didn't want those sensations tested (and thus explained) because she wasn't making any claims about them. No objections here--even if she did have those experiences, they would be ordinary.

Later, she changed her mind and made claims about those sensations. When she did that, she lost the reason she'd previously given in order not to test them. If she makes extraordinary claims about those sensations, then yes, she does have to prove she actually has them. She could do that by proxy (by proving her ability to detect scents, etc.), or by undergoing a brain scan.

The bottom line is that I'm not uncritically assuming she has those sensations.

31st March 2009, 11:36 AM	#1
Ashles Pith Artist Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The '80s Posts: 8,711	More Vision From Feeling claims Anita has claimed the following: Quote: I can look at a flower from inside a car and perceive its scent to a most wonderful extent, even flowers that we don't smell with our noses. I walk by the aisles at a store and can look at the foods and perceive what they taste like. It is a wonderful and rich experience and perception of the world. Anita, would you be able to perform such feats in a test situation?
	__________________ With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell No one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate - Ivars Peterson

31st March 2009, 12:37 PM	#2
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479	You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences "seems to be very similar to synesthesia." It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same.
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479

31st March 2009, 12:47 PM	#4
skeen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 257	No, it is not taken out of context at all. I wouldn't even bother to try to link her claims with scientific possibilities - this is a woman who has seen dinosaur ghosts, spoken with the ghost of Benjamin Franklin, and is an extra-terrestrial. I think that at this point, there have been so many posts made (thousands), that we're just going round and round and round in circles. There's going to be a whole new group of posters who just don't know about Anita's previous claims, and what people have gone through in getting her to perform any kind of a reasonable test.
skeen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 257

31st March 2009, 12:51 PM	#6
Madalch The Jester Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The wet coast. Posts: 8,707	Originally Posted by Rairun It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same. Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling No, the experience is not triggered by the shape, but by... ermh... am... how do I say this without starting it all up again? Em... it is the vibrational information that I feel shimmering around the flowers, that comes from the molecules that make the scent molecules. And my mind translates the vibrational pattern into corresponding scent. Which means that trying to "smell" the difference between real flowers and synthetic ones from a distance, and with glass in the way, should make an excellent test without involving medical tests.
	__________________ As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker

31st March 2009, 12:53 PM	#7
Kariboo Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 502	Originally Posted by Madalch Which means that trying to "smell" the difference between real flowers and synthetic ones from a distance, and with glass in the way, should make an excellent test without involving medical tests. It would, but she just stated that she doesn't want to do so, To VFf: why??
Kariboo Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 502	__________________ KAREN: Honey, you know I'm a little psychic. Remember when I predicted that Driver was gonna lose his job, and then two days later I fired him? JACK: My God, you're right. And that time you predicted that Rosario was gonna fall, and then you pushed her down the stairs.

31st March 2009, 12:46 PM	#3
VisionFromFeeling Banned Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: North Carolina, United States Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by Rairun You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same. No, the experience is not triggered by the shape, but by... ermh... am... how do I say this without starting it all up again? Em... it is the vibrational information that I feel shimmering around the flowers, that comes from the molecules that make the scent molecules. And my mind translates the vibrational pattern into corresponding scent. There! I said it! But Ashles, right now I'd like to try to test the medical perceptions. Nothing else at the moment.

31st March 2009, 12:50 PM	#5
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,804	Originally Posted by skeen No, it is not taken out of context at all. I wouldn't even bother to try to link her claims with scientific possibilities - this is a woman who has seen dinosaur ghosts, spoken with the ghost of Benjamin Franklin, and is an extra-terrestrial. I think that at this point, there have been so many posts made (thousands), that we're just going round and round and round in circles. There's going to be a whole new group of posters who just don't know about Anita's previous claims, and what people have gone through in getting her to perform any kind of a reasonable test. It's that sucker born every minute thing.

31st March 2009, 12:54 PM	#8
skeen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 257	Originally Posted by Madalch Which means that trying to "smell" the difference between real flowers and synthetic ones from a distance, and with glass in the way, should make an excellent test without involving medical tests. You just proposed a very simple test, that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Anita has some kind of a paranormal ability; a test that would garner worldwide media attention, and essentially make Anita a millionaire. And if you think for even a second that she would do it, you must be very new to her claims.
skeen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 257

31st March 2009, 01:08 PM	#9
VisionFromFeeling Banned Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: North Carolina, United States Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by Madalch Which means that trying to "smell" the difference between real flowers and synthetic ones from a distance, and with glass in the way, should make an excellent test without involving medical tests. Madalch! I didn't recognize you without the green creature picture! As always, when Madalch does post, it is brilliant. This is a wonderful test, and I would do it! How do we make flowers that are visually indistinguishable from real ones?

31st March 2009, 01:10 PM	#10
skeen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 257	I predict this test will be complete by the end of this week. I kid, I kid. It will never happen. Or, Anita will skew the protocol to the extent that not a single forum member thinks it will be productive...again.
skeen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 257

31st March 2009, 01:14 PM	#11
Kariboo Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 502	Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling How do we make flowers that are visually indistinguishable from real ones? http://www.silkflowers.com/listprodu...e=1&view=large
Kariboo Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 502	__________________ KAREN: Honey, you know I'm a little psychic. Remember when I predicted that Driver was gonna lose his job, and then two days later I fired him? JACK: My God, you're right. And that time you predicted that Rosario was gonna fall, and then you pushed her down the stairs. Last edited by Kariboo; 31st March 2009 at 01:16 PM.

31st March 2009, 01:20 PM	#12
Ernie M Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 444	Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling Madalch! I didn't recognize you without the green creature picture! As always, when Madalch does post, it is brilliant. This is a wonderful test, and I would do it! How do we make flowers that are visually indistinguishable from real ones? Want good looking fake flowers? Buy some. A simple Internet search for silk flowers will show among others: http://www.silkflowers.com/ http://www.silkfever.com/ Are you sure you are a college student?
Ernie M Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 444	__________________ paranormalstateillustrated.com Taking a close look at what you see and hear on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.

31st March 2009, 01:34 PM	#13
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079	Originally Posted by Madalch ......without involving medical tests. or a great deal of expense. ETA. Fruit: Do VfF's remote olfactory talents extend to fruit? Those examples along with the flowers look very realistic BV
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079	Last edited by bonavada; 31st March 2009 at 01:38 PM.

31st March 2009, 01:37 PM	#14
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by Rairun You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences "seems to be very similar to synesthesia." It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same. Just so you know, she took a battery of screening tests for synesthesia - tests designed to capture as many potential synesthetes as possible. In all but one test she failed to get through the screening. One test indicated a possibility of one type of synesthesia, but it was not a strong possibility. As a control I manipulated my answers and passed the screening with an extremely strong likelihood of having synesthesia. Furthermore, you should take some time to read the threads because it is YOU, not Ashles, who is taking things out of context. If we're going to talk about Anita smelling flowers at a distance, the proper context should include this quote from the Interview thread: Quote: 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 Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

31st March 2009, 01:59 PM	#15
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079	From what I understand of UncaYimmy's quoted text above. VfF claims she can distinguish between different molecules by their "vibrational aspect" Is this true? If so, who needs flowers? Just mince up twenty different types of stuff, slap it in seperate sealed jars and a way to go. BV
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079

31st March 2009, 02:28 PM	#16
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,187	Originally Posted by bonavada From what I understand of UncaYimmy's quoted text above. VfF claims she can distinguish between different molecules by their "vibrational aspect" Is this true? If so, who needs flowers? Just mince up twenty different types of stuff, slap it in seperate sealed jars and a way to go. It's been done with 5 types of stuff. She failed 100%. There is pretty much only one thing she doesn't fail to do with some consistency. She treats people who invest some effort into helping her like crap.

31st March 2009, 02:32 PM	#17
Kariboo Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 502	Originally Posted by bonavada From what I understand of UncaYimmy's quoted text above. VfF claims she can distinguish between different molecules by their "vibrational aspect" Is this true? If so, who needs flowers? Just mince up twenty different types of stuff, slap it in seperate sealed jars and a way to go. BV You can look up her lactobacillus test on her website Also the test Pup and she agreed on with 5 medications
Kariboo Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 502	__________________ KAREN: Honey, you know I'm a little psychic. Remember when I predicted that Driver was gonna lose his job, and then two days later I fired him? JACK: My God, you're right. And that time you predicted that Rosario was gonna fall, and then you pushed her down the stairs.

31st March 2009, 02:43 PM	#18
edona7 Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 79	Knowing how much attention feeds VfF's delusions, why do we keep on 'feeding the troll,' so to speak? The more attention she gets, the more she will write, the more 'abilities' she will create, and the more likely she is to actually try practicing her 'medical diagnostics' on real people, for fun and profit. Clarissa

31st March 2009, 02:43 PM	#19
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Virginia City Posts: 3,250	Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling Madalch! I didn't recognize you without the green creature picture! As always, when Madalch does post, it is brilliant. This is a wonderful test, and I would do it! How do we make flowers that are visually indistinguishable from real ones? And the dance begins again: "This is a wonderful test, and I would do it...except, only, but..."

31st March 2009, 02:46 PM	#21
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by bonavada From what I understand of UncaYimmy's quoted text above. VfF claims she can distinguish between different molecules by their "vibrational aspect" Is this true? If so, who needs flowers? Just mince up twenty different types of stuff, slap it in seperate sealed jars and a way to go. BV Ya think? We've been though all of this many times before. She's all gung ho about doing a test until it actually comes time to do it, and then the excuses start. Go read the interview thread. It's all been covered before. Here's an example from very early on: Quote: You [VFF] 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. As you can see, we've been there and done that. What's interesting is that Anita allegedly gets sick after identifying 10 trials of identifying a single chemicals, but she can easily spend 20 minutes scanning a person's body. Of course, those are different skills, right? It has been months now. Anita could have done hundreds of trials a few at a time without being sick. We would have an answer. But we don't.
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

31st March 2009, 02:50 PM	#22
technoextreme Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,786	Originally Posted by bonavada From what I understand of UncaYimmy's quoted text above. VfF claims she can distinguish between different molecules by their "vibrational aspect" Is this true? BV Hey hey hey. I can do that to. Admittedly, I need a quarter of a million dollars worth of equipment but hey I can do it.
	__________________ It's amazing how many of these "paranormal" icons seem to merge together. There always seem to be theories about how they link together in some way. I'm sure someone has a very good explanation as to how Bigfoot killed JFK to help cover Roswell.-Mark Mekes This isn't rocket surgery.-Bill Nye Last edited by technoextreme; 31st March 2009 at 02:52 PM.

31st March 2009, 02:54 PM	#23
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,795	Originally Posted by Rairun You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences "seems to be very similar to synesthesia." It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same. It's not "pretty obvious" at all. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything is happening here. Making up "some sort of reconstruction in her brain triggered by the sight of flowers" to explain something that most likely does not occur is futile.

31st March 2009, 02:59 PM	#24
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by Jeff Corey It's not "pretty obvious" at all. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything is happening here. Making up "some sort of reconstruction in her brain triggered by the sight of flowers" to explain something that most likely does not occur is futile. No, it was pretty obvious if you read her whole post. She was talking about synesthesia and how she doesn't claim those olfactory perceptions are linked to the actual smell of foods or flowers. The problem here seems to be that she writes a perfectly reasonable post, and then five minutes later she makes a much more extraordinary claim while denying she's shifting positions.
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479

31st March 2009, 03:06 PM	#25
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079	Originally Posted by UncaYimmy Ya think? We've been though all of this many times before. She's all gung ho about doing a test until it actually comes time to do it, and then the excuses start. Go read the interview thread. It's all been covered before. Here's an example from very early on: As you can see, we've been there and done that. What's interesting is that Anita allegedly gets sick after identifying 10 trials of identifying a single chemicals, but she can easily spend 20 minutes scanning a person's body. Of course, those are different skills, right? It has been months now. Anita could have done hundreds of trials a few at a time without being sick. We would have an answer. But we don't. That'll teach me to dive in withough a lifejacket. I shall take a look through all your gubbins and refrain from being so cocksure. Thanks BV
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079

31st March 2009, 03:12 PM	#26
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,874	Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling Madalch! I didn't recognize you without the green creature picture! As always, when Madalch does post, it is brilliant. This is a wonderful test, and I would do it! How do we make flowers that are visually indistinguishable from real ones? Why don't you just use images, since you claim that images of drugs get you high ?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

31st March 2009, 03:27 PM	#27
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,495	Originally Posted by Rairun You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences "seems to be very similar to synesthesia." It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same. I think it would be fair if you allow the person making the claim to explain, don't you? Unless she asked you to work on her behalf. The both of you joined within a couple months of each other, so the skeptics+cynics here might suspect you were in cahoots, if not actually the same person. M.
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,495	__________________

31st March 2009, 03:37 PM	#28
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by Moochie I think it would be fair if you allow the person making the claim to explain, don't you? Unless she asked you to work on her behalf. The both of you joined within a couple months of each other, so the skeptics+cynics here might suspect you were in cahoots, if not actually the same person. M. I don't think you've bothered to read my other posts in this thread, let alone all my posts in this board.
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479

31st March 2009, 03:42 PM	#29
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,495	Originally Posted by Rairun I don't think you've bothered to read my other posts in this thread, let alone all my posts in this board. I hadn't read your other posts in this thread because I'd just discovered the thread and was reading my way through it. I apologize if I've mischaracterized you, which appears a distinct possibility now that I've read the entire thread. And no, I don't recall seeing any of your posts outside of this thread, but then, you haven't made a great many posts. Again, apologies. M.
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,495	__________________

31st March 2009, 04:31 PM	#30
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Virginia City Posts: 3,250	Originally Posted by Rairun Originally Posted by Jeff Corey It's not "pretty obvious" at all. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything is happening here. Making up "some sort of reconstruction in her brain triggered by the sight of flowers" to explain something that most likely does not occur is futile. No, it was pretty obvious if you read her whole post. She was talking about synesthesia and how she doesn't claim those olfactory perceptions are linked to the actual smell of foods or flowers. The problem here seems to be that she writes a perfectly reasonable post, and then five minutes later she makes a much more extraordinary claim while denying she's shifting positions. You have to know the history behind this to understand what Jeff is referring to. The only person who thinks Anita has synesthesia is Anita. She refuses to be formally diagnosed-because no doctor can diagnose what isn't there, and it would reveal her fantasy-and, as Unca Yimmy pointed out: "Just so you know, she took a battery of screening tests for synesthesia - tests designed to capture as many potential synesthetes as possible. In all but one test she failed to get through the screening. One test indicated a possibility of one type of synesthesia, but it was not a strong possibility." So, when she makes up a description of a fictitious ability, she tailors the details to fit within the parameters of synesthesia. It's called "hoax synesthesia". The symptoms are right, but, in this case, it doesn't actually exist. There's no sense pretending that any of Anita's claims are genuine. She's just here to yank everyone's chain, gather more attention for herself, and perpetuate what is, basically, a fraud. If she can get even one person to believe her claims, then that validates her fantasy, but it really doesn't matter if we believe her or not. We're paying attention to her, and that is the result she craves. Remember, the real world "is a very dull and boring place", and, when possible, retreating into a delusional fantasy where she can "experience a richer world of perception than do most" is her preference. That is what she does here, and on her website. And I shall go back to ignoring her nonsense here.
	Last edited by desertgal; 31st March 2009 at 04:58 PM.

31st March 2009, 05:37 PM	#31
Madalch The Jester Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The wet coast. Posts: 8,707	Originally Posted by skeen You just proposed a very simple test, that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Anita has some kind of a paranormal ability; a test that would garner worldwide media attention, and essentially make Anita a millionaire. And if you think for even a second that she would do it, you must be very new to her claims. I'm not new to her claims, actually- I tried testing her at one point, but stopped paying attention when she claimed to prefer medical tests to easy-to-set-up-and-administer chemical ones.
	__________________ As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker

1st April 2009, 03:38 AM	#32
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,684	Originally Posted by Rairun You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences "seems to be very similar to synesthesia." It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same. Originally Posted by Rairun Then I have to agree with everybody else. You see, I'm not saying that you don't see something you call "vibrational information." It's possible that you do. The problem here is that you are changing your explanations around. You seemed to be treating it as a subjective experience only, something you "feel shimmering around the flowers." Now you are also saying that it "comes from the molecules that make the scent molecules." That's most definitely a claim that can be tested. And if those experience follow the same principles as your medical "perceptions", why would you not test them? Originally Posted by Rairun No, it was pretty obvious if you read her whole post. She was talking about synesthesia and how she doesn't claim those olfactory perceptions are linked to the actual smell of foods or flowers. The problem here seems to be that she writes a perfectly reasonable post, and then five minutes later she makes a much more extraordinary claim while denying she's shifting positions. Originally Posted by Rairun I don't think you've bothered to read my other posts in this thread, let alone all my posts in this board. Well, that sounded like a challenge, so I took it up. I set aside a few hours and read through all your contributions to the thread and I have quoted them above, in their entirety, for the assistance of those who might wish to falsify the following hypothesis: You don't know what you're talking about.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 1st April 2009 at 03:40 AM.

1st April 2009, 11:40 AM	#33
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479	Oh, come on. Did you even read those posts? Let me walk you through this: Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling What I experience seems to be very similar to synesthesia, which, by definition is not a mental illness and typically not even a handicap. I experience a richer world of perception than do most. When I look at a page of physics equations, it comes to life in my mind, not as rows of variables but as shapes, colors, patterns and vibrational aspects, that interact on their own in my mind to show the results of their interaction, that I then translate back into physical significance. When I look at the abbreviated letters of chemical elements, they are not just letters, they are color, shape, and vibration. Here she seems to be aware that those "vibrations" aren't inherent in the physics equations, and that they are simply artifacts produced by her brain. If not, there would be no rational reason for her to compare it to synesthesia at all. Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling And when I look at human bodies, I perceive vibrational information, that translates on its own in my mind into images of human tissue, felt perception of pain or discomfort, heartbeat, swallowing or breathing. I can look at a flower from inside a car and perceive its scent to a most wonderful extent, even flowers that we don't smell with our noses. I walk by the aisles at a store and can look at the foods and perceive what they taste like. It is a wonderful and rich experience and perception of the world. It does nothing to harm me, or others. I have the ordinary perception as well, and can distinguish between the two. It does not interfere with my understanding of the world otherwise, as a very dull and boring place as seen by others. And I conclude my perceptions to be subjective to me, knowing that others don't see or feel what I do, as opposed to immediately assuming them to be reality-based or "extrasensory" - with the possible exception of the medical perceptions which have shown some compelling correlation. The passage in bold confirms my impressions above: she says that her perceptions are subjective, and that there is no correlation whatsoever between the images she sees in her head and the actual scent of the flowers. She even contrasts the flowers with her medical perceptions, which she suspects to show some correlation. Having that in mind, are you still going to deny that it was not reasonable for me to have said: "You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences 'seems to be very similar to synesthesia.' It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same"? I stand by what I said. It's impossible to interpret her words in any other way. She didn't make that point just once. She repeated herself several times: Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling I have not claimed to experience the actual taste of foods as I walk by them. All I said was that that is what I experience. Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling My accounts of tasting food when I walk by is not a claim. It is a description. And I don't think you should be too quick to judge it as outrageous, it is just what I perceive. Like someone saying that they feel good when they listen to music. Would you ask them to prove it? With brainscanning and endocrine measurements perhaps? Just an experience, nothing else. That sounded reasonable to me, and still does. But then she went on to say: Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling No, the experience is not triggered by the shape, but by... ermh... am... how do I say this without starting it all up again? Em... it is the vibrational information that I feel shimmering around the flowers, that comes from the molecules that make the scent molecules. And my mind translates the vibrational pattern into corresponding scent. There! I said it! Can you not see that she shifted positions here? "Just an experience, and nothing else" became "just an experience, and vibrational patterns from scent molecules that humans can't see." That's why I said: Originally Posted by Rairun No, it was pretty obvious if you read her whole post. She was talking about synesthesia and how she doesn't claim those olfactory perceptions are linked to the actual smell of foods or flowers. The problem here seems to be that she writes a perfectly reasonable post, and then five minutes later she makes a much more extraordinary claim while denying she's shifting positions. There you go. Your hypothesis is falsified. Furthermore, if I proposed a challenge at all, it had nothing to do with the truth of the points I made here. It was about the accusation that I was in fact VisionFromFeeling under a different name.
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479	Last edited by Rairun; 1st April 2009 at 11:45 AM.

1st April 2009, 11:42 AM	#34
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,874	Sad how Anita has members fighting each other .. Must be a new divide and conquer strategy ..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

1st April 2009, 11:48 AM	#35
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by Moochie I hadn't read your other posts in this thread because I'd just discovered the thread and was reading my way through it. I apologize if I've mischaracterized you, which appears a distinct possibility now that I've read the entire thread. And no, I don't recall seeing any of your posts outside of this thread, but then, you haven't made a great many posts. Again, apologies. M. It's okay. No worries.
Rairun Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 479

1st April 2009, 11:49 AM	#36
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,795	Originally Posted by Rairun ...Having that in mind, are you still going to deny that it was not reasonable for me to have said: "You're taking it out of context, I think. She said that what she experiences 'seems to be very similar to synesthesia.' It's pretty obvious that the scent she perceives is some sort of reconstruction that takes place inside her brain, triggered by the sight of flowers. It's in no way related to the actual smell of the flowers she observes. You could probably trigger the same olfactory experience by exposing her to plastic flowers, as long as they looked exactly the same"? I stand by what I said. It's impossible to interpret her words in any other way. She didn't make that point just once. She repeated herself several times:... You are making the assumption that she actually perceives a scent and then you try to explain it. Without that unjustified assumption, there is nothing to explain.