Ashles (post #246):
Ashles said:
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.
Well of course paranormal is one interesting label, and synesthesia is another, but to me which ever label I get for what my perceptions are, to me it's just a label. I am not attached to the idea of having one over the other, I just want to find out and think this is interesting in either case. I mean, I am seeing actual, real-looking, very detailed images of tissue! If it is my imagination producing that I'd still be impressed and would find out that it is an interesting case of human creativity.
Ashles said:
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.
Quite right. I do not want to find myself crying after I fail the test, and I don't want to get all big-headed if I pass the test either. There's nothing wrong with adopting a calm and rational approach to things in life, it's an important quality for a scientist to approach their study in a logical not emotional way.
Ashles said:
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).
I will always continue to enjoy the ability even if I find out that it is not the case of extrasensory perception. The negative results of a test could bring a large number of incorrect observations and show that it is not as accurate as it seemed, and negative results could also suggest a non-paranormal source of this information. The information will however continue and will be the same, although understood in a new way.
Ashles said:
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)
If my ability is real, then there does exist a real vibrational information, and the human body and brain as an instrument being capable of accessing and processing this information, it should potentially be possible to build an instrument that can do the same as I. As an instrument it would function independently of me. It would read the vibrational pattern that corresponds to the vibrational aspect of for instance the molecule. (Vibrational aspect is what I and many physicists believe to be the more fundamental composition of matter, on a scale deeper than the atoms.) Vibrational information from different sources could be combined to calculate a resulting vibrational aspect and make predictions, and is based on not numbers but on the natural interaction of vibrational patterns. I am headed toward taking a Masters in Optical Engineering and who knows, maybe I will build such an instrument.
Ashles said:
You may have the most vivid imagination in the world - that means nothing scientifically without real world experiments to back up your theories.
Exactly.
Ashles said:
You have had negative results - they are detailed on this thread. You then changed the protocol and had positive results again.
Exactly. I was exploring different test procedures to find out under what circumstances my ability could perform. These early cereal tests were done to try test procedures.
Ashles said:
A more relevant analogy would be someone who goes to have their eyesight tested and is found to have colourblindness and enjoys that colourblindness.
Nope. Would be like going to have their eyesight tested and finding out for instance that they can see on a microscopic level. What ever my perceptions are it is not a handicap and takes nothing away from my otherwise fully functional perception. The ability is an addition to perception.
Ashles said:
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.
Yes, and after all of that is done and I know what is the source of the perceptions, the ability remains the same and nothing has changed in how I perceive the world.
Ashles said:
We have never reached that point with other claimants so you cannot say what they might do. (...) It is entirely hypothetical at this stage.
And from your perspective so is my behavior and what my reactions would be if I passed or failed the test.
Ashles said:
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.
Yes. Definitely so. I want to find out.
Jeff Corey:
Jeff Corey said:
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.
No need to apologize your input is very valuable and please come back and see us again. I was not aware of this distinction and still don't understand it. It's like saying that just because the glass if half empty you can't say that it is also half full at the same time. If you pass the test then you did not fail it, or if you failed the test you did not pass it. Why can't the other half be deduced from the first? But I trust that you know how these things are done.
Pixel42:
Pixel42 said:
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.
I trust that during a test with the IIG or with the JREF none of their members would be lying about the right answers, but since they want to avoid having a claimant accuse them of lying I think it is standard procedure for them to record the right answers so that it can be shown afterwards.
steenkh:
steenkh said:
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.
Interesting idea I will keep it in mind, although I would be sad for the bacteria.
Old man:
Old man said:
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?
In the very initial cereal tests I remained in the room but turned around and closed my eyes, while the assistant prepared the next trial and he then left the room. A real test would of course not be done this way, and future cereal tests as well won't.
Beth:
Beth said:
Is it 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.
Yes it is possible. Aren't there dogs that can detect cancer in humans by smell? If this were what my ability is, I would not be disappointed. However I detect plenty of ailments that I can't imagine are associated with a particular scent, such as being able to distinguish the alignment of bones one way as opposed to another. A scent of Lactobacillus is also possible and a real, official test would have to remove the possibility of scent detection, unless we want to consider such an ability paranormal in itself!
UncaYimmy:
UncaYimmy said:
My suggestion is to come up with a situation where you can do it with hopefully perfect accuracy even if that includes knowing in advance which one is right. Then take away your knowledge of the right answer and try the same test. When you get the same results, *then* we can look for ways to isolate your special ability from your normal abilities.
Does this sound reasonable?
Yes and that is how it will be done as soon as I find the time and interest for more cereal tests.
Moochie:
Moochie said:
See, here's one problem I have with you: You're supposedly in an academic environment yet no one seems to know of your fabulous "ability." Why is that, exactly? By my reckoning any college/university would be applying funds and their best brains to test your claimed "ability," and if the tests produced irrefutable evidence that yes, you do indeed possess the "abilities" as claimed, the entire world would know about it by now.
Instead, we have a rather juvenile website, and we have you, someone who for all intents and purposes exists only as a cartoon on the Internet.
I am sure you understand that someone hoping to make a career in the field of science must be careful with how they express interests in what is considered the paranormal. I have however shared this ability with
three professors at my school but did that each in a situation where I could explain this carefully and where I had developed trust in that they could remain as open-minded about this as I am and understand that I am merely hoping to find out the truth behind what to me is a very interesting experience. I am beginning to share this with people more and more, and last time I did that gave me an opportunity to try the ability on a new person and receive some interesting data on it. I am very careful in not involving my university in this since I do not expect my university to want involvement with the paranormal. Also this is the university where I work and study and it would be more convenient for me to work with my ability with another university.
I kind of like my website and I am sorry that you do not. I try to add a little personal touch to it and I apologize that it is pink but hey I am a girl. I don't mind existing as a cartoon. Don't worry, by the time I have the test with the IIG I am sure there will be some publicity and hey maybe you can see me on TV and tell everybody that you talked to me back in the days?
UncaYimmy:
UncaYimmy said:
For example, at a place I used to work I was discussing the rise in health insurance rates. The HR person mentioned that a few people had some specific chronic illnesses but didn't name names. I immediately guessed who they were. Judging by her reaction I believed I was right. I later confirmed it through conversation.
Did I magically detect their illnesses? Of course not. My brain put together many subtle clues without me really thinking much about it on a conscious level. When I *did* think about it, I thought it was obvious.
Just this week we hired a new daycare provider. Within minutes I "sensed" that she was the youngest child in a big family and that her parents were kind of strict. I said as much to my wife, then later confirmed it through conversation. ESP? Of course not. It was just an educated guess based on behavior.
My imagination is not particularly visual (more auditory and conceptual). If it were and if I were inclined to think woo first, I'd probably believe I had special powers. Instead I'm just an plain old human.
Hopefully a test will find out what the source of my perceptions are. The interesting thing is that I have detected many things where I can not imagine what the external clues might have been.
Ocelot:
Ocelot said:
Briliant, nice avatar by the way. Any luck getting hold of a propper randomiser? Have you managed to run a trial of the lactobacillus in cereal test without feedback and randomly generated locations.
Yes we now have dice and I will of course post the results of any future cereal tests or other tests that are done.
Ocelot said:
I think you're being generous with yourself in counting a list of ailments that the person doesn't have as a hit.
I thought so too and will probably remove it.
Old man:
Old man said:
VFF, this is a good example of what many people here have been trying to point out to you.
From your writing style and use of language, you appear to be quite knowledgeable about the human body (and medicine, in general). Are you now trying to tell us that you're completely unaware of the fact that tonsillectomies, appendectomies, and hysterectomies involve the removal of parts of the human body, and are incapable of making the simple the logical deduction that a vasectomy just might be the removal of all or part of the vas (deferens)? FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="
You've had no education about sexual reproduction?
You've never seen a labeled diagram of a human male's sexual organs?
Maybe you're good at sub-consciously accessing the vast amount of info that we all have been exposed to. That's how my memory works. I can't retrieve specific bits of info to save my life, but I'm pretty good at figuring things out, using that stored data.
At this point I am more interested than knowledgeable in anatomy and medicine. I have always been perfectly aware of the fact that tonsillectomies and appendectomies etc involve the removal of parts. But I did not know that vasectomy involved the removal of tissue. Had I had to guess what the procedure involves I would have assumed it involves an incision only, which is why I was surprised to see that a part of the tissues had been removed. I can not count this as evidence but I find it interesting when my perceptions contradict my beliefs and turn out to be correct. I really mean it, had I been on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and the million dollar question had asked about how a vasectomy is performed, I would have answered that it is just an incision. I have had education in this and taken courses in human anatomy but we never studied specific procedures such as this.
ETA: My knowledge in anatomy and medicine is much more vast from the perceptions of my ability, than they are based on knowledge that I've learned in the world.
