Vision From Feeling

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ocelot:

You've experimented with covering the cups with paper, this may have failed. I'm quite concerned about that. You've suggested that this may be because paper blocks some types of low energy radiation. Indeed it does. Light is one of the types of radiation that is severely attenuated by a sheet of paper. Although you've positioned yourself so that you can't see the inside rim of the cup this doesn't completely eliminate the possibility that you're picking up the cereal's influence on ambient light. If the cups are on top of a grill then I assume that they're close to a wall. That would make ambient light a concern.

Why would I sense Lactobacillus through its plastic wrapping and cereal box but not through a piece of paper? I will try using different types of covers again and also investigate whether a test could be designed in such a way to allow no covers. I am not trying to design any tricks into my test protocol because I know very well that James Randi would find them all. I am trying to find the flaws myself, and am grateful that the Forum can point them out too.

You've suggested that your difficulties in this run might equally have been because of the larger number of potential targets, that would seem to be supported your feedback with procedure 2.

A total of three cups should be acceptable for a test in case my ability were to become overwhelmed by more than that. However now that I discovered the better method, that is, to find the target rather than to first find the plain cereal ones one by one, I may be able to add to a total of four, and maybe five, or even more, cups without it affecting my confidence. And that would be wonderful. If I learn a method that works in spite of the number of cups, then that would benefit the test.

I also note that this first trial was before you hit upon the idea of wetting the active cereal. With regard to wetting the active cereal it might be best to wet all cereals to ensure that it is the bacillus that you're detecting rather than the moisture. That said, skeptics have a time honoured tradition of testing people who think they can detect water under unusual circumstances so that might equally be a paranormal claim. Wet it if that works for you, if it doesn't then you've got a "water dowsing" protocol, and couple of pillocks who think that invalidates your test. Their opinion doens't matter if this works out for you then you should be able to apply for the JREF on the basis of being able to tell wet lactobacillus from empty cups, cups with dry cereal, or cups with wet cereal, so long as there's no outward way of telling you're good for the million. However that's just my opinion which doesn't matter either the JREF would have the final say.

I can wet all cereals if that is required, but I do prefer the idea that I detect "wet lactobacillus". So far I do not use empty cups on the test for two reasons: one being that the cups should have similar weight and contents to each other so that this could not take part in detection. Another is that the plain cereal in my perception of it has a dark, flat light, and the difference between the bright bacterial light and the dark plain cereal light is greater than the difference between the bright bacterial light and an empty cup.

However back to that paper. I do think that a propperly controlled challenge should involve covers. It'd be strange if paper should have such an effect as you first reported noticing your sensitivity to this bacillus when it was obscured within a friends' stomach and later through the cardboard of a cereal box. Given your other attempts to improve your sensitivity, i.e. reducing to three cups and wetting the cereal it might be worth revisiting this issue and seeing if you can try again with the paper in place when it's just three cups and the target cereal is moist. If not then perhaps the cup can be elevated in a location where ambient light would be less of a concern – i.e not near a wall.

I am also curious about why I sense it in a cereal box and in the stomach but not through a paper post-it cover. It might sound strange but I find that the vibrational information of the things that I detect interacts with the vibrational information of things in its surrounding. Things that have been somewhere a long time become settled and their vibrational informations blend. That is how people claim that they can pick up an object and "feel" where it has been because it somehow "picks up" vibrations from its surroundings. Oh well it is not my claim to be able to sense where things have been. When something is placed into a new container its vibrational information has not settled. Kind of like throwing something into water, it takes a little while for the surface of the water to settle. This sounds like absolute and total woo and pseudoscience but it is part of how I theorize about this.

Thank you for your very in depth analysis of the effects of feedback and on unintentional patterns of randomization. I am glad you said earlier that you enjoy statistical analysis because I'd feel guilty about letting you do all this work otherwise.

I was not aware of reading any kind of patterns in the placement of the cups, but of course one would not be aware. One thing that suggests to me that I might not be using patterns is that at times when for some reason I would start to think that "the cup is to the right", or "the cup won't be to the left", or any other kind of ideas or thoughts that made me think of where it was, thoughts that were not based on the ability, I felt this distracting rather than helpful. Had I been guessing I would have definitely gone by these "thought hunches". They were distracting me and I requested a re-shuffle. A re-shuffle would not necessarily switch the placement in the row of any particular cup but would move all cups even if just to turn them a bit. A re-shuffle allowed me to let go of what ever beliefs I had before so that I could focus on "feeling" and "seeing". In my perception I was not using thoughts or logic to make my conclusions. This is my statement of how it was and is not proof of anything.

Throughout procedure 5 of the second cereal test I did not experience any trend of gradually "getting better" as would indicate the learning of a pattern or catching on to how to outsmart the test somehow. I did notice a decline in the performance toward the end due to fatigue.

From now on I will stop the test when I can not continue. That way I expect the downward trend to not appear toward the end in future tests. Would I simply be "quitting when I'm at the top" then? No, because I am compelled to make as many trials as I can because I want at least 50 before there are plenty enough for some type of statistical conclusion (which of course does not mean that the test was done under proper standards or to make a conclusion on having an ability).

The good thing is that I know when I am tired. Another good thing is that I can state my confidence level in an answer before I make the answer and before I receive the feedback on it. That way my confidence levels can be also recorded. One valuable use of this is that if I claim to be absolutely certain of where it is and it isn't there, then I could start to doubt the ability. I applied this last time but it didn't lead to dismissal.

There were no warm-ups before I had the test. I reported exactly every trial that I had and there were none done before whose results would have been discarded. I will not discard any result of any kind because that would not be helpful toward a workable testing protocol and a statistical understanding of what the ability might be.

The interesting thing is that I noted fatigue before making the incorrect answers at the end and before learning that they were incorrect. In future protocols I will have to stop when I am tired and no excuses of fatigue can be made. When I claim to see something, I will claim to see it without fatigue, and if it is incorrect, I can accept that I was wrong, not tired.

No my subconscious did not trigger fatigue when I wasn't doing well. I had 9 out of 10 and was doing very well, but then I got tired, and only at that did I get them wrong.

We need a much larger total number of trials.

The sequence used in the cereal tests will be recorded by the assistant from now on and will be randomly generated with the use of a die.

It should have been our last chance as there's no really good reason for you to be continuing what is essentially a game of rock – paper – scissors. However the fact that you've given in to the temptation for immediate feedback and somehow found it difficult to obtain a proper randomizer can be construed as circumstantial evidence that your subconscious knows that this is how it's playing its games and is resisting changes to a favourable set-up. As such it would be hardly surprising that you've not presented the sequence to be investigated for any hidden structure.

I will be continuing with the cereal tests. The total number of cups will be increased if possible. If I feel fatigue I will stop. There will be a larger total number of trials. I will not be giving in to the temptation of immediate feedback from now on (as it should be just as much fun to find out the right answers at the end as it is during the test). Yes it was difficult to obtain a proper randomizer but for the next test there will be a die. I was not trying to avoid a randomizer! I wanted one badly but we didn't have one in the house! Don't make assumptions that I'd be avoiding proper testing procedures. I have only started the tests and am very excited to improve the test procedures. I have no resistance to proper conditions. I did not have the sequence, so how could I present it? Next time we will have the sequence!

Perhaps the cups could be placed inside a shoebox? Do you think that would work with your ability?

A shoebox is a good idea and will be tested later on.

It's of far greater concern to me that you've resisted using random numbers, are still getting immediate feedback and aren't publishing the actual sequences of target locations and predictions.

I have never resisted using a real random generator! We just didn't have one! I couldn't publish the sequence because we didn't record it! Next time I will!

Also please please please, strictly predifine the test conditions and the number of trials then stick to that even if you feel things aren't going well. By all means limit yourself to ten attempts in a session to avoid the fatigue and nausea you experience but specify this in advance. Otherwsie selection bias will invalidate your test.

I prefer to be allowed to stop once I don't feel well, and at that point I make no more answers. That way I can not make any excuses on fatigue after making a failed observation. This way I might do ten trials in a row, or more trials sometimes, but always as many as I can. I will no longer try to make trials when my ability is hindered but am glad that I assessed what happens when I do. I can not say how many trials I can do every time, if I had to specify I'd say ten is a good number.

Even without these other concerns it could look as if all you were doing was tinkering with the protocol each time you failed waiting for a run of luck then quitting one that lucky streak had expired.

I did try different test procedures and I did tinker with them when they did not work. That way I found one I was comfortable with and used it until I could no longer. I did not stop after having failed twice because I had failed twice. I stopped because I could not continue. The excuse of fatigue will not appear again since I will stop when I get tired from now on.

Thank you for the statistical analyses.

 

[Pup]

I think we need a food chemist to weigh in here. It's my understanding that yes, lactobacillus does become more active when wetted, and when active, produces lactic acid which produces a characteristic odor most people recognize as the smell of sour cream or sour milk (not spoiled milk). Someone with synesthesia might describe it differently.

It would be difficult to tell one cup from another by odor alone, if the cups are close together and the tester is at a distance. However, if I'm correct, I'd look toward tightening the protocol by eliminating any chance of odor being detected from the cereal.

Also, a common way that people fool themselves into believing that they have paranormal abilities is to convince themselves--after they know they're wrong--that they weren't sure of the answer so the wrong answer wasn't really a good test.

Since you say you can tell when you're absolutely certain and when you're guessing or uncertain or might be wrong, I'd suggest trying some tests where you only give an answer when you're absolutely certain, and never give an answer otherwise, even if it means giving no answer at all, as a test to prove to yourself that you really can predict when you're certain, and when you're certain, you really do get 100% correct.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:

I'm going to put your not understanding this down to a language issue.

Correct, it is a matter of how we define words. I will from now on refer to what I perceive with my ability as "perceptions", and "observations" will only refer to perceptions that have each been proven to be an accurate and true depiction of the real world.

No. There would be no 'ability'. You may still have the same perceptions, but if they are not related to real information then are simply illusions, and having such illusions is not an 'ability' and there would not be any 'observations'.

Another language issue. I referred to "ability" as having the perceptions. Thank you for clearing out what our conflict was.

I have a degree in Experimental Psychology in which we studied a lot of perception and it was fascinating in how many ways the system can misinterpret information.

I am very glad to have someone with your insight here.

That you do not like the thought of considering the possibility it may be an 'error' is interesting in itself.

I am open to the conclusion that the perceptions are not accurate observations. But based on past experiences of doing my best to check the accuracy of my perceptions, the accuracy has been compelling and at this point I have not come across any specific thing that would suggest no ability. It does not mean that I am not open to the possibility.

It seems very important to you that whatever it is you are experiencing it in some way is a positive and sets you apart somehow. A very common aspect of such claims is the repeated emphasis that it is not unusual to you and you aren't much bothered about it, but it is inconceivable that whatever you are experiencing might be undesirable, or of no net positve benefit. A strange paradox.

Not at all. My perceptions are interesting to me and are positive in the same way as I appreciate my vision, hearing, and other senses of awareness. It is not unusual to me. I am not trying to be special. I really don't want to argue about how I feel about myself or my perceptions, I have been fully honest when I describe how I feel and how I feel is not the object of discussion here anyway.

This is where language is important.
If you said in that paragraph "In either case I get to keep the sensations" or "experiences" then we are in full agreement.

Exactly. Whether I pass or fail the test, in either case I get to keep the perceptions and experiences, because it is the experiences that I enjoy. Not some premature and unfounded belief that I'd have a paranormal ability, since that is just a label and what ever label it gets I get to keep the very same perception.

If you are uncomfortable with replacing the word 'ability' with either of those words then I would ask you why?

I am not uncomfortable replacing words and have in fact already done so.

What does "vibrational algebra" actually mean? What does it have to do with algebra? You have already stated you know little to no statistics at the moment, so I am wondering how you believe you could apply the complexities of molecular structure into a mathematical framework and create new medicines from this. Do you have any evidence at all that you have a new system for creating brand new medicines other than the two words "vibrational algebra"?

Vibrational algebra is when I combine in my mind the individual vibrational aspects that I perceive of different things. I experience these merging and interacting to yield a resulting vibrational aspect which I can then translate into corresponding real-world objects. It works just like algebra, I can add or subtract vibrational aspects in my mind. I have not applied this in a scientific setting yet but will apply it heavily later on in my career. I even intend to try to build an instrument that calculates with vibrational information.

Again you may as well be saying "I will use magic" if you have no experimental or factual basis for saying such things.

Exactly. I just wanted to describe how I perceive what is happening.

You can't do science just by imagining it in your head.

The imagination in the head is usually the starting point of most scientific work.

However if I suggested we formulate testing around this claim I assume you would then say it isn't your strongest ability...

I only recently begun testing my perceptions. I did not know whether my ability would be strong enough on bacteria detection to perform with high enough frequency of observations to be useful for a test, but now that I am testing it I am more confident.

Again what do you mean by 'fail'?

A failed experiment such as if a flask with the sample is accidentally knocked over and the test is ruined, should not be taken personally by the scientist. And on the other hand when a null hypothesis is verified for instance that I do not have a paranormal ability, then that represents another type of "failed" experiment and is also not to be taken personally or emotionally.

But you claim repeatedly you aren't bothered about having the ability or not? Anyway your emotions are relevant if they are potentially causing you to become strongly disposed to confirmation bias.

I would not be bothered to find out that I do not have a paranormal ability. To this date I have not been able to dismiss the possibility of having a paranormal ability. I am working on designing a cereal test that does not allow confirmation bias. I would absolutely accept negative results. There just haven't been any yet.

All of your posts show an extremely strong attachment to your perceived ability to the point you have repeatedly stated that an entirely negative result would still not stop you perceiving this as an 'ability'. (Unless as mentioned earlier there is some confusion over the exact definition of words).

Yes language problems. My perceptions remain even if I fail the test, and I would continue to have the perceptions. That is what I meant. Whether it receives a label of ESP or synesthesia or some other unknown and non-paranormal explanation I am happy either way because I get to keep the perceptions. I am happy about keeping my perceptions for the same reason that a person who goes to have their eyesight tested is happy to know that even after the test they get to go home with their eyesight not taken away from them. I get to keep it just like it is today. Nothing will be added to the perceptions, and nothing removed. It is the label I am looking for.

Why specifically a chemistry experiment?

Because most of my statistical skills and experiences are in the field of chemistry.

One of the worst outcomes is that the experiment is carried out and you demonstrate positive results, but lack of tight controls in the test protocol allows room for questions about the validity of the result.

I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact I am prepared to critique my tests after I have had them, especially if I receive a passing score. If I pass the IIG test I will have to look very carefully at how it was conducted and will try to find any sources of error. This is not consistent to most claimants who would take the money and run but it is honestly how I feel about this. In fact I have stated to the IIG that a condition for the test protocol must be outlined that if during or after the test some unexpected source of error was identified then we can cancel the test. If you assume that I really want a reliable test result then this should make sense. It is like if you go to a doctor to find out whether you have a certain disease, even though you hope you are well you want to be sure that the diagnose is reliable. You wouldn't want to go home being diagnosed as well and having to worry whether maybe after all they missed it and gave you the wrong diagnose. You'd go back to have another more reliable test.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

shuttIt:

It doesn't really relate to your current testing, but a story occurred to me that might have some relationship with your more general sense of having validated your powers.

I can't say that I have validated my powers. But I can say that I have failed to dismiss the possibility of having powers. I have done my best to check the accuracy of my perceptions and failed to find a single incorrect result. I have done two draft-quality cereal tests and they give the conclusion that I have failed to dismiss the possibility of having the ability.

I was actually at great risk several times, at a 2 in 3 risk if guessing, to encounter a situation in the cereal test where I would have admitted that there is no power at all. I made some observations that I was so confident in that I decided there and then that if they are incorrect then I have no ability at all. Turns out they were correct, but, for what ever reason whether due to the 1 in 3 chance of guessing, or some unintentional error such as subtly distinguishable cups or a real ability, but at least I have failed to dismiss the hypothesis, but have not proven the hypothesis either.

You may have powers, you may not, but don't necessarily trust people to tell you honestly whether you 'guessed' right or not. People will lie to you for stupid reasons.

Yes this is a concern with the IIG protocol that what if people aren't telling the truth for some reason? Although they will be stating their health problems before the test. A cereal test doesn't have this kind of issues.

Miss Kitt:

I am now prepared to consider VFF a genuinely self-deceived person. I am seeing enough of a pattern of: Shrugging off negative results ("I am 100% correct" despite in her own testing having failures); self-contradictory statements ("Apparently the paper was blocking..." versus detection inside a sealed, in-the-store cereal box); changing the story to fit the current needs ("when I found the H. pylori in a relative" -- per the original post, she used "vibrational algebra" to conclude that calcium carbonate might be a good treatment for H. pylori); and leaving out pertinent information (not mentioning until deep into the experiment description posts that she DISCARDED any attempt where she didn't get a feeling and had the cups reshuffled for another trial) to consider that she is on some level not trying to get a realistic trial.

It sounds like a silly excuse but during the cereal tests I was pushing myself to answer even when I did not perceive the bacteria. This will not be done on later tests. I am also baffled by how a paper post-it could block the light whereas a plastic package and cereal box didn't. In the second session of cereal tests I tried many different variations of procedures and discarded procedures that did not work with me, yet I did post all of these results for you as well and I do not discard any answer that I make whether it is in my favor or not. Once I found procedure 5 I continued with it until I could continue no longer.

The re-shuffle was mentioned under the "comments" section of the post that posted the results of that cereal test. That information was definitely not left out, although it might have been in the wrong section and I apologize for that. There was no intention of hiding the re-shuffle.

I requested a re-shuffle when for any reason I had a thought of where the target should be, and this could account for having unintentionally read some sort of pattern in the assistant's randomizing, such as "it was to the right previously so it can't be to the right again". I demanded a re-shuffle so that I could eliminate any such assumptions. In this way I was trying to ensure that what my answers are, are answers based on what I believe I perceive, so that the test is testing for my perceptions rather than my thoughts since thoughts are not a paranormal ability.

The previously not-mentioned do-overs for "I don't get anything" trials is a big issue. Given that we don't know how many times these 'extra' set-ups occurred, how can we possibly do any kind of statistical analysis? If it's an elaborate game of subconscious "Rock, Paper, Scissors," doesn't the presence of these additional shuffles totally alter the hit occurrance? That is, if she doesn't get a 'read', she requests a new set-up.

I was concerned that the re-shuffles could interfere with the statistics but was not sure and I'm glad to get some comments on it. If re-shuffles are not to be allowed, then they will not be done. I am really trying to design a good protocol, but I do apologize for the crude methods up to date. If we ever arrive at an official JREF test then it will be done to acceptable standards that we can all be happy with.

The refusal to use a die to randomize is very concerning. The unwillingness to concede that there is not yet evidence of an "ability", only of believed-in perceptions has actually crossed over into irritating for me.

What is concerning to me is that you assume that there is a refusal to use a die. I looked all over the house, I had assumed that we had a die and so I did not buy one, but to my surprise we didn't have one so we couldn't use one! What has crossed over into irritation for me is that you say that there is an unwillingness to concede that there is not yet evidence of an ability, when I have stated over and over again that these test results can not conclude an actual ability. Thanks though.

Gord in Toronto:

So. After scrolling through all the posts between yours and this one, I can reasonably gather that nothing of any importance has been accomplished? Thank you.

That's right. Nothing of importance in terms of real evidence for or against. I am testing different cereal test procedures and publishing their results, so there is some progress of moving toward an acceptable test protocol. And so far I have not been able to dismiss the possibility of a real ability.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Pup:

lactobacillus does become more active when wetted, and when active, produces lactic acid which produces a characteristic odor most people recognize as the smell of sour cream or sour milk (not spoiled milk).

Too bad. Hopefully my sense of smell isn't quite that good because that would complicate things.

Since you say you can tell when you're absolutely certain and when you're guessing or uncertain or might be wrong, I'd suggest trying some tests where you only give an answer when you're absolutely certain, and never give an answer otherwise, even if it means giving no answer at all, as a test to prove to yourself that you really can predict when you're certain, and when you're certain, you really do get 100% correct.

Exactly that will be applied in upcoming tests.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
Correct, it is a matter of how we define words. I will from now on refer to what I perceive with my ability as "perceptions", and "observations" will only refer to perceptions that have each been proven to be an accurate and true depiction of the real world.

Okay that's great. We are in agreement here.

Another language issue. I referred to "ability" as having the perceptions. Thank you for clearing out what our conflict was.

Again we have cleared up a possible misunderstanding.

I am open to the conclusion that the perceptions are not accurate observations. But based on past experiences of doing my best to check the accuracy of my perceptions, the accuracy has been compelling and at this point I have not come across any specific thing that would suggest no ability. It does not mean that I am not open to the possibility.

Okay we'll see what the IIG test shows.

Not at all. My perceptions are interesting to me and are positive in the same way as I appreciate my vision, hearing, and other senses of awareness. It is not unusual to me. I am not trying to be special. I really don't want to argue about how I feel about myself or my perceptions, I have been fully honest when I describe how I feel and how I feel is not the object of discussion here anyway.

We still disagree on this point but it's not of immediate issue. We won't make any further headway here until the IIG test is done and we see the outcome.

Exactly. Whether I pass or fail the test, in either case I get to keep the perceptions and experiences, because it is the experiences that I enjoy. Not some premature and unfounded belief that I'd have a paranormal ability, since that is just a label and what ever label it gets I get to keep the very same perception.

Again we have a little language issue here. Paranormal is not "just a label" - it has a very real and distinct meaning. And I would have thought that by now on this thread you should know that.
A perception that yields real information that is unknown to science (which you currently claim) IS Paranormal.
A perception which does not yield real information is NOT Paranormal.
It isn't just a label it has real meaning.

It really is a very consistent behaviour you are displaying which seeks to minimise the difference between a positive test result and a negtive test result.
The difference makes all the difference in the world to what you are experiencing.
If you still enjoy the ability knowing it is not yielding real information then that is great (although it probably would be worth knowing what is the actual cause).
But it is simply incorrect to imply that there is no real difference other than a simple and meaningless label.

I am not uncomfortable replacing words and have in fact already done so.

You have (although for full clarity we need to be sure that Paranormal is not seen as merely a label, but a real meaningful distinction).

Vibrational algebra is when I combine in my mind the individual vibrational aspects that I perceive of different things. I experience these merging and interacting to yield a resulting vibrational aspect which I can then translate into corresponding real-world objects. It works just like algebra, I can add or subtract vibrational aspects in my mind. I have not applied this in a scientific setting yet but will apply it heavily later on in my career. I even intend to try to build an instrument that calculates with vibrational information.

That really does not add any information to the discussion.

What would add information is any detail of how you would build an instrument to calculate this. Such an instrument would have to work in quantifiable information tha existed outside your perceptions.
How would such a device work?(I assume it isn't simply a calculator that you feed numbers that you have perceived into)

Exactly. I just wanted to describe how I perceive what is happening.

Are you saying you cannot in any way quantify your perceptions? How could you then create a machine to calculte them?

The imagination in the head is usually the starting point of most scientific work.

I specifically explained that.
I then said "You can't do science just by imagining it in your head" as in that cannot be the entire process.
The start point may be imagination but then you need to do actual experiments to confirm or disprove your hypothesis. Again I feel that was quite clear.
You may have the most vivid imagination in the world - that means nothing scientifically without real world experiments to back up your theories.

I only recently begun testing my perceptions. I did not know whether my ability would be strong enough on bacteria detection to perform with high enough frequency of observations to be useful for a test, but now that I am testing it I am more confident.

That really didn't answer my question (unless it answered it in exactly the way I predicted).

A failed experiment such as if a flask with the sample is accidentally knocked over and the test is ruined, should not be taken personally by the scientist.

Nobody has been discussing a voided experiment at any point. I don't understand the relevance of such an example. The scientist would run the experiment again.

And on the other hand when a null hypothesis is verified for instance that I do not have a paranormal ability, then that represents another type of "failed" experiment and is also not to be taken personally or emotionally.

That is not a "failed" experiment. It is an entirely successful experiment. An experiment is solely designed to find out as accurately as possible how reality operates. In no way would such an experiment be considered a failure.
It would only be correct to say a claimant had failed to acheive the level of results they had claimed they could.

I would not be bothered to find out that I do not have a paranormal ability. To this date I have not been able to dismiss the possibility of having a paranormal ability. I am working on designing a cereal test that does not allow confirmation bias. I would absolutely accept negative results. There just haven't been any yet.

Er I don't understand that comment. You have had negative results - they are detailed on this thread. You then changed the protocol and had positive results again.
This does not mean your ability isn't real, but you can't say you have not had negative results.

Yes language problems. My perceptions remain even if I fail the test, and I would continue to have the perceptions. That is what I meant. Whether it receives a label of ESP or synesthesia or some other unknown and non-paranormal explanation I am happy either way because I get to keep the perceptions. I am happy about keeping my perceptions for the same reason that a person who goes to have their eyesight tested is happy to know that even after the test they get to go home with their eyesight not taken away from them.

This reinforces an earlier point about your dislike of perceiving this perception as in any way negative. The perceptions are not "your eyesight" they are an abnormality of your perception.
A more relevant analogy would be someone who goes to have their eyesight tested and is found to have colourblindness and enjoys that colourblindness. If that is how you feel then that analogy would be relevant.

I get to keep it just like it is today. Nothing will be added to the perceptions, and nothing removed. It is the label I am looking for.

And suddenly it seems like you are again not understanding the difference.
It is not the "label" that IIG are testing for, it is the actual posession of an abilty or the lack of that ability.

Because most of my statistical skills and experiences are in the field of chemistry.

I thought you said you didn't have statistical skills.

I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact I am prepared to critique my tests after I have had them, especially if I receive a passing score. If I pass the IIG test I will have to look very carefully at how it was conducted and will try to find any sources of error. This is not consistent to most claimants who would take the money and run but it is honestly how I feel about this.

We have never reached that point with other claimants so you cannot say what they might do. Other claimants I am sure would claim exactly the same desire to stringently examine the protocol as you claim.
It is entirely hypothetical at this stage.

In fact I have stated to the IIG that a condition for the test protocol must be outlined that if during or after the test some unexpected source of error was identified then we can cancel the test.

They would do that anyway. It would be weird if they didn't.

If you assume that I really want a reliable test result then this should make sense. It is like if you go to a doctor to find out whether you have a certain disease, even though you hope you are well you want to be sure that the diagnose is reliable. You wouldn't want to go home being diagnosed as well and having to worry whether maybe after all they missed it and gave you the wrong diagnose. You'd go back to have another more reliable test.

Yes that is a good way of putting it.

May I finish with a blunt question which hopefully will clarify some confusion I have which is again probably a language issue.

If the test were to yield negative results (i.e. results within the expected range of chance/guessing) would you accept that there was a possibility that your sensations were not based on real information and existed solely within your viusal processing system/imagination?
A yes or no answer would help with clarity.
If the answer is yes then we have no further disagreement.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Once a reliable test protocol is designed, if I can produce the same results as I did in the previous test of 9 out of 10 correct, then according to http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html,

With a total of 3 cups one of which contains the bacteria, and a 1 in 1,000,000 chance by random,
After 10 trials, 9 correct, data not given
After 20 trials, 18 correct, up to 17 by chance
After 30 trials, 27 correct, up to 23 by chance
After 40 trials, 36 correct, up to 28 by chance
After 50 trials, 45 correct, up to 33 by chance

With a total of 4 cups one of which contains the bacteria, and a 1 in 1,000,000 chance by random,
After 10 trials, 9 correct, up to 9 by chance
After 20 trials, 18 correct, up to 15 by chance
After 30 trials, 27 correct, up to 20 by chance
After 40 trials, 36 correct, up to 24 by chance
After 50 trials, 45 correct, up to 28 by chance

So 9 out of 10 correct is very promising if it is reproducible across several repeated sets of 10 trials that are combined into a total of 50 trials. 9 out of 10 is good if it continues across a larger number of trials.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Sorry to jump in here, but I just looked at this and found in post 240, "If I make a statistically significant number of incorrect answers that indicate no paranormal ability, then I will gladly accept it."
That's not how it works. You must demonstrate a statistically significant number of correct answers for anyone to accept that there is anything going on here. A statistically significant number of wrong answers is requiring too much disproof.
That is called moving the goalposts from "better than chance" to "significantly worse than chance".
And a nice demonstration of one of the flawed strategies underlying confirmation bias.

 

[Kuko 4000]

VVF, thank you for starting to use the quote button. It's much easier to follow the discussion now.

 

[Pixel42]

Yes this is a concern with the IIG protocol that what if people aren't telling the truth for some reason? Although they will be stating their health problems before the test. A cereal test doesn't have this kind of issues.

It doesn't? How do you know which cup actually contained the bacteria, then, if the person doing the shuffling doesn't tell you? If that information comes from a human being, the possibility that he/she is humouring you certainly needs to be considered.

 

[steenkh]

Perhaps a test should be made with a part of the lactobacillus cereal exposed to microwave radiation to kill the bacteria. In that way, it woul dbe much harder to distinguish the two test samples.

 

[shuttlt]

Perhaps a test should be made with a part of the lactobacillus cereal exposed to microwave radiation to kill the bacteria. In that way, it woul dbe much harder to distinguish the two test samples.

What about the spirits of the bacteria? They might linger for some time, just like Patrick Swayze, only with bacteria.

 

[Old man]

Old man:
I am very open to finding out that I do not have a paranormal ability.

Excellent.

Perhaps I should not have posted the first two cereal tests?

You certainly should have posted the info about your tests. How else can we help you set up a fair test? It may not seem like it, but we are trying to help you.

I already know that they were not done under proper conditions, I am still working on that. Upcoming tests will be done under more proper procedures.

Great. I’m glad to see that.

Originally Posted by Old man
I presume from the above description that you did not wet the non-supplemented cereal. If so, poor protocol.

I don't see how this would weaken a protocol?

By introducing a new, non-random, variable.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
I was very pleased to find an easier method for identification (to search for the supplement cup rather than first eliminate the wrong ones one by one).

Originally Posted by Old man
This seems strange to me. If I’m looking for gray marbles mixed in with white ones, I have to look at them all, anyway. How can you find the supplement cup if you don’t assess all of the cups?

If you have two cups with a gray marble and one cup with a white marble and you can only look at one cup at a time, and you claim to be able to sense their color. You can either work on detecting the gray marbles one at a time to eliminate those and deduce which one remains and is the white one, and then look at the white one to verify that you think it is the white one. Or, you could work on detecting the white marble, and once you find it, you can verify that you think it is the white one, and do not need to look into the others unless you choose to, and that way it should not matter how many gray ones are around it the work will be almost the same. So it is much easier. This way I am hoping that I can increase the total number of cups because I don't have to exhaust myself by finding all the wrong ones first and can go straight to the right one. A larger total number of cups makes the test statistically more interesting for test purposes.

The way I do this is I sense the entire row of cups searching for a specific vibrational information, and when there is a match it is highlighted. I then look closer at that cup to verify that it is what I searched for, and do this one by one. By searching for the white light rather than the dark, I can detect the one target cup instead of the other ones.

You misunderstand what I was saying. Your claim seems to be that that you can look at visually identical samples and sense some real difference between them. Maybe my analogy could have been better. My claim is not about detecting ‘hidden’ marbles, just as your claim is not about detecting ‘hidden’ Lactobacillus. I was simply trying to say that, if in fact you do sense a difference, you need to at least examine targets until you locate the ‘right’ one, assuming, of course, that there is only one “right’ one, just like I’d have to look at some of the white marbles until I found the gray one. If there are multple ‘correct’ targets, then you’ll need to examine all targets, just like I’d have to look at all of the marbles. Do you understand?

Originally Posted by Old man
But was it a fair method (i.e. not biased)?

The cereal test protocol so far is absolutely not acceptable as an official test protocol and there are many improvements to be made on it. I don't know what you mean by biased? Please explain, I'm sure it's a good question if only I knew what it is asking about.

You seem to be changing your protocol in mid-test, whenever the results don’t uphold your beliefs. Several people suggested that you may be getting subtle visual clues from uncovered cups. You tried covers, and quickly rejected them

(…did the paper cover stop what ever radiative information is emitted from the bacteria?)

when your own anecdotal evidence suggests that normal vision is not needed. It looks like you may be (unconsciously) ‘gaming’ the test. Do you really want a fair test?
You tried five different protocols in the ‘test’ reported in post # 220, and you talk about varying the number of containers and the distance you will be from them. Please, define a protocol, blind it well, and adequately test it. This is the only way you’ll be able to find what you really can do.

 

[Old man]

Once a reliable test protocol is designed...

Why not try the one I posted (post # 187)? It's cheap and easy. The scale isn't essential, I suggested using one only to ensure that all samples were the same size. That can also be done volumetrically.

I asked earlier if you would report on how you blinded your tests, i.e. the whereabouts of you and your assistant during setup and testing.

Could you inform us about this critical element?

 

[JWideman]

Once a reliable test protocol is designed, if I can produce the same results as I did in the previous test of 9 out of 10 correct, then according to http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html,

With a total of 3 cups one of which contains the bacteria, and a 1 in 1,000,000 chance by random,
After 10 trials, 9 correct, data not given
After 20 trials, 18 correct, up to 17 by chance
After 30 trials, 27 correct, up to 23 by chance
After 40 trials, 36 correct, up to 28 by chance
After 50 trials, 45 correct, up to 33 by chance

With a total of 4 cups one of which contains the bacteria, and a 1 in 1,000,000 chance by random,
After 10 trials, 9 correct, up to 9 by chance
After 20 trials, 18 correct, up to 15 by chance
After 30 trials, 27 correct, up to 20 by chance
After 40 trials, 36 correct, up to 24 by chance
After 50 trials, 45 correct, up to 28 by chance

So 9 out of 10 correct is very promising if it is reproducible across several repeated sets of 10 trials that are combined into a total of 50 trials. 9 out of 10 is good if it continues across a larger number of trials.

I think one of us misunderstands. To prove beyond chance, you'd have to get all 10 correct.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I think one of us misunderstands. To prove beyond chance, you'd have to get all 10 correct.

I think you misunderstand what she's saying. I think what she's driving at is that if she can maintain this 9 out of 10 rate to end up with 45 out of 50, she's on to something other than just chance.

 

[Soapy Sam]

May I finish with a blunt question which hopefully will clarify some confusion I have which is again probably a language issue.

If the test were to yield negative results (i.e. results within the expected range of chance/guessing) would you accept that there was a possibility that your sensations were not based on real information and existed solely within your viusal processing system/imagination?
A yes or no answer would help with clarity.
If the answer is yes then we have no further disagreement.

I too would be interested to read a yes or no response to this question.

 

[Beth]

Too bad. Hopefully my sense of smell isn't quite that good because that would complicate things.

Is it be possible that it is the sense of smell that you are perceiving and a form of synesthesia providing you with the interpretation of what you perceive? It might not register on your consciousness while still triggering a synesthetic reaction. Smell can travel through cardboard more easily than paper. Plastic it wouldn't, but a small hole or rip in the plastic might not have been noticed and would allow scent to get through.

Posters here have a tendancy to get hung up on eliminating all possible non-paranormal routes of information transmission - not an easy quest at this stage of the game! Early experiments often do nothing more than establish the conditions under which your unusual perceptions can be relied on to function well and the conditions in which they do not. This is to be expected, but it can try the patience of those who only watch and wait (and sometimes jeer ).

I gather from your posts that you are interested in figuring out what route of transmission you may be receiving the information through, not just whether or not it is of the so-called paranormal type. So keep in mind that any test protocol that results in your being unable to percieve the information you normally do should provide you with insight into how you actually do sense those perceptions that you are able to interpret so accurately. Good luck with your future experiments.

Incidently, you have my admiration for keeping your temper in check. You have restrained yourself admirably from responding in kind to some of the more antagonistic remarks about your tests and ability. If you are college student of normal age, your parents are also to be commended for having raised you so well.

Ashles and Soapy Sam: Regarding the question of

If the test were to yield negative results (i.e. results within the expected range of chance/guessing) would you accept that there was a possibility that your sensations were not based on real information and existed solely within your viusal processing system/imagination?
A yes or no answer would help with clarity.
If the answer is yes then we have no further disagreement.

Many claimants have answered yes to the question, but then when results were negative did not actually change their beliefs. So an answer now isn't actually going to tell you much anyway because many people really don't know how they will respond until faced with the situation. Therefore, I see no reason to badger VFF (or anyone else) about this until there are test results which do not differ significantly from chance. So far, hers have consistently indicated that she is perceiving the bacteria in some non-obvious way. It may take much patience and many many trials before she is able to determine exactly how she is able to perceive what she does.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Many claimants have answered yes to the question, but then when results were negative did not actually change their beliefs. So an answer now isn't actually going to tell you much anyway because many people really don't know how they will respond until faced with the situation. Therefore, I see no reason to badger VFF (or anyone else) about this until there are test results which do not differ significantly from chance. So far, hers have consistently indicated that she is perceiving the bacteria in some non-obvious way. It may take much patience and many many trials before she is able to determine exactly how she is able to perceive what she does.

I think there's a matter of quid pro quo. If she expects people to assist her in her quest, don't you think it's only fair to give something in return?

A yes answer regarding changing her beliefs based on the results might be wishful thinking or even deceit, but I'm willing to accept a "yes" knowing the risks involved. I'm already accepting that she's actually performing these tests as described when, in fact, I don't know a thing about her.

Anita answering "No!" is not risky at all. It tells me what I need to know. I am *not* willing to assist somebody who from the start puts no weight in the results.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles and Soapy Sam: Regarding the question of

Many claimants have answered yes to the question, but then when results were negative did not actually change their beliefs. So an answer now isn't actually going to tell you much anyway because many people really don't know how they will respond until faced with the situation. Therefore, I see no reason to badger VFF (or anyone else) about this until there are test results which do not differ significantly from chance. So far, hers have consistently indicated that she is perceiving the bacteria in some non-obvious way. It may take much patience and many many trials before she is able to determine exactly how she is able to perceive what she does.

There have been several examples in this thread where VfF's language has left room for interpretation.
I would like to clarify the one outstanding point that I am still unclear on and have asked a direct question. I think VfF probably feels she has explained the point clearly, but I am asking an unambiguous question because I am still not entirely clear on her stance (probably through no deliberate intention by VfF).
This is hardly 'badgering'.

If she replies "Yes" to the question then I feel comfortable that everything should be able to proceed in good faith.

As UncaYimmy mentions above, a "No" or refusing to answer the question would raise some further questions in itself.

So please Beth I am directing the question to Vision from Feeling not you. If she chooses to answer or not is entirely up to her.

So Vision From Feeling the question is:

If the test were to yield negative results (i.e. results within the expected range of chance/guessing) would you accept that there was a possibility that your sensations were not based on real information and existed solely within your viusal processing system/imagination?
A yes or no answer would help with clarity.
If the answer is yes then we have no further disagreement.