Vision From Feeling

[nathan]

My prediction about random photos

Not likely to be so.

Your basis for this? I wasn't being facetious, I was showing you a good way that can be used for these kinds of claims. Get photos of N different (but similar) people. Make N readings. Provide all N people the N readings and get them to select which reading is theirs. The more accurate you are, the more of readings will be matched up. Statistics can tell you what the random chance matches would be expected. Is this an experiment you'd like to do?

But of course, you're not going to do this. You're going to waffle on about 'vibrational energies' that are supposedly transmitted through TV, or maybe through time, or something.

This is not in my hands and depends on the testing organizations. You may write to the IIG West and ask them to get on with it. I do this from time to time.

Huh? since when are they the only people capable of performing a correctly blinded test? You attempted some experiments, with suggestions from here, but you consistently failed to blind them, and hence had systematic errors.

You are being just the typical woo claimant, making extraordinary claims, offering anecdotes, claiming to be open to suggestions, but ignoring them, claiming to answer questions, but not answering them, shifting your claim(s), blaming everybody else for your inability to provide evidence, making cold readings and then claiming hits for misses and things you did not mention until after the fact. Soon you will be indistinguishable from troll.

If you want to be taken seriously, provide some evidence. Stop with the anecdotes.

 

[nathan]

So, are these definite observations about the little girl that you're absolutely sure are correct, or are these guesses?

And, how many of them do you, Anita, think are correct? I.e. if you've claimed 10 issues, and have a 'hit' on one, is that a success or failure?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Skeptic:
I feel sorry for throwing the computer at your post (post #382) and not the others' because you just joined in, so to make up for it here is a nice one just for you:

desertgal:

That isn't what I said. I said that, in my opinion, the experiences themselves are self deception, (...)

We don't know whether it is self deception yet. From my experiences I can not conclude self deception yet.

Once again, as has been explained to you several times here, your claims of detecting anything-whether you are self deceiving, whether it actually does happen, or whether it is your imagination - are unsubstantiated. I don't know that you detected a vasectomy, or anything else. Claims are not proof.

And as I have consistently stated, my past experiences are not evidence for others but are evidence enough for me to conclude that there is reason to proceed toward having a real test.

Senex:

Do it. Whatever it is you can do you should prove it right now. But I know you can't because you believe you can do something that isn't possible. There is no shame at thinking you can do something you can not do -- the shame is in underestimating yourself.

If you look at my observations page and accept that I had those experiences, it will be clear why I proceed toward having a test. I am no woo for wanting a scientific test, nor for wanting to find out what the source of the perceptions are rather than just leave it be.

SimonD:
I am working as fast as I can. It is mostly not in my hands since other people are involved.

Akhenaten:

Your tears will start in earnest if/when you finally realise the extent of your self-delusion.

No, because I have not claimed to have an ESP ability. The objective is to find out what the source of the perceptions are, and either outcome is fine by me. I'm starting to think that some of you skeptics will have tears if I were to pass a test. I think I am being more neutral and objective here than some of the skeptics.

The only information you provide is gleaned from your own extremely subjective observations. Please don't tell us what we can see - you have less chance of being correct about that than you do with being correct about your observations of atoms and human ailments.

Not necessarily, but with a test we will find out. Medical diagnose from live persons is the main part of my claim.

You're working on furthering your own delusion. The best that can be hoped for is that if any of these tests ever happen you'll be forced to stop spouting about having an "ability" and do something about whatever your actual problem is.

I meet with a person for the very first time and we've only known each other for a few hours. I decide to confide in him that I perceive health information and ask if I could try with him. He agrees, and I do my thing. I say that there is a very specific small region on his abdomen, right below the sternum, 1.5 cm wide vertically and 4 cm wide horizontally, in which the small intestine has a tendency of locking up, which would lead to a sensation not of pain, but strain. This information was absolutely correct and has no external symptoms. Why is it deluded to then conclude that there may be an extrasensory perception and to proceed toward tests of scientific standard? And if I were to fail all tests there is no problem since the perceptions do not interfere.

Diogenes:

Why are you going down this road again ?
You have repeatably said that you cannot reliably diagnose with pictures...

Just to have a try, why not. It's like when kids ask a grown-up to play darts with them, and the grown-up tries and is miserable at it. Then the kids want to play again so the grown-up does it even though he knows he's bad at it, just to make the kids happy.

You seem to have a problem with remembering from moment to moment, what supernatural powers, you do and do not have..

Nope. I told Professor Yaffle that I do not diagnose from pictures.

Pup:

The weak spot, of course, is if she doesn't specify ahead of time that she's not seeing anything, before answering. Then it's too easy to guess and if it's wrong afterwards, assume that this wasn't one of the times that the power was working, but if it's right, use it as evidence that it was working. A classic way to fool yourself and others.

When I conduct tests to find out if I can perform under those test conditions I push myself just to find out what the limits of the perceptions are. When in a formal test whose set up I have agreed to I must clearly state that I am confident in my answers and no such excuses can be made after that point.

So, are these definite observations about the little girl that you're absolutely sure are correct, or are these guesses?

I quote myself as having said to Professor Yaffle in the private message I sent him concerning the little girl's health that what I say is "utter nonsense".

nathan:
Yes I would try the picture experiment that you suggested, but without expecting the results I have with real life persons. There is nothing wrong with requiring real life persons or vibrational information if that is what the paranormal claim is. I have a testable claim and we will find out.

Huh? since when are they the only people capable of performing a correctly blinded test? You attempted some experiments, with suggestions from here, but you consistently failed to blind them, and hence had systematic errors.

Exactly, I can not set up a test all on my own. Tests with local skeptic groups will hopefully be done shortly. If I am invited to a test with other skeptic groups and can afford and have the time to travel I will definitely attend a test.

You are being just the typical woo claimant, making extraordinary claims, offering anecdotes, claiming to be open to suggestions, but ignoring them, claiming to answer questions, but not answering them, shifting your claim(s), blaming everybody else for your inability to provide evidence, making cold readings and then claiming hits for misses and things you did not mention until after the fact. Soon you will be indistinguishable from troll.

I am not a typical woo claimant for instance because I am open minded to finding out that there is no ability and because I am working hard on arranging scientific standard tests. Yes I make an extraordinary claim because I have had extraordinary experiences. Yes I offer anecdotes but I consistently state that these are not proof for others but are proof enough to convince me that I have failed to dismiss a possible ability and must proceed toward better tests. I am open to suggestions but keep in mind what my claim actually is. I have carefully ensured that I have answered every single question posted on this thread, and that's a lot of work so please give me some credit for it. I have not shifted my claim, my claim has been and still is medical diagnose from live persons. I am unable to provide evidence on my own since I am the claimant and anything that I personally bring forth can be suspected of being tampered with, but I have no one else to blame for lack of evidence since no one else has been involved at this point. I make plenty of perceptions with live persons that I can not understand how to attribute to cold reading. I have not claimed a miss as a hit and have not had a miss yet in real life.

If you want to be taken seriously, provide some evidence. Stop with the anecdotes.

This is simply the case of impatience.

And, how many of them [perceptions of the girl in Professor Yaffle's picture] do you, Anita, think are correct?

As I said the perceptions from that picture are to be considered nonsense. Medical diagnose from pictures is not my claim since it does not occur often enough to have a reliable frequency to be suitable for a test.

ETA: The only example of diagnose from pictures that I did confidently since the information came on its own and without effort, was shown to be correct information. I would need an elaborate test with lots of pictures so that I can select the ones where I do detect information. I can not claim that I am unable to detect medical information from pictures, but I do state that I am less interested in a test with pictures when a test with live persons functions reliably often and with high confidence level.

 

[nathan]

thank you for taking the time to respond

Medical diagnose from pictures is not my claim since it does not occur often enough to have a reliable frequency to be suitable for a test.

You are incorrect. You made the claim that you can sometimes make accurate medical diagnoses from pictures but sometimes it doesn't work. How do you know that times it did work weren't merely random chance?

That is one of your claims in this thread. Are you withdrawing it?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

The little girl

Sent yesterday to Professor Yaffle in private message regarding picture on http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4263789&postcount=373

Disclaimer: This attempt on medical diagnose is done on a picture, which is not part of my claim. Accurate information can not conclude that I have an ESP ability, and inaccurate information can not conclude that I do not have an ESP ability. My claim is to detect accurate information with people in life. This is however interesting to attempt just to see how it goes.

I am not confident in this information. This information does not represent an example of how I perform with real life people. This information is not as specific as it is in real life cases. But let's just see...

*The baby's body contains more water than is normal for babies of her age and size. Normally babies contain more of the dense, yellow fat tissue than she does. She has water where fat should be. She is also lacking on nutrients, specifically the ones that build tissue (fat and protein) as opposed to vitamins and minerals. There is a lot of water in the front forehead part of the head, although not causing any pressure against the brain and is harmless.
*The liver has an issue that would probably be helped by certain vitamins. The liver is darker than normal and slightly denser and harder than normal.
*There may be a slight drawback in what her awareness and learning level should be, however as an older girl and grown woman she would be fine.

Treat this information as utter nonsense - I do! And I am sure that her parents and also doctors are much better aware of her health situation. I just gave it a try, I presented some vague nonsense, and let me know what you think.

This is not a representative example of how I perform with real life persons.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

News:

For some reason I was starting to lean toward finding other discussion sites.

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

I then joined the British UK Skeptics and have a thread started at http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3278.

I've tried to arrange for tests entirely with the skeptical and scientific community but progress is very slow, so I decided to contact an alleged psychic, and I ask her whether it would be possible for me to meet with some of her clients or if she could promote my interest in meeting with volunteers who are willing to let me try psychic medical diagnose with them, free of charge of course. This way I could gain some valuable experience while we await proper tests, and will again conclude either that there is no ability, or that I've failed to dismiss the possibility of an ability and to proceed toward further tests.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Before I go through your reading Anita, can I just clarify something? When you say that I should treat it as utter nonsense, do you mean that you saw nothing from the photo and justmade something up? Or did you see something similar to what you have been claiming here, but just not as strong?

Or to put it another way, if you got feelings like this from one of the subjects in a test, would you pass on her because you saw nothing, or would you include her in the test?

 

[desertgal]

Well, I've hardly been one of VFF's supporters, but in this case, I don't see the contradiction. It's not performing on demand, because I think this is what she means:

Performing on demand would be if every time someone comes up and says, "Here's a picture, tell me what you see," she can see something and respond.

What she's saying is that sometimes, randomly, when someone says, "Here's a picture, tell me what you see," she can see something and answer. But they can't demand that she see and answer; she either sees or she doesn't, and if she doesn't, she can't change that fact.

Well, respectfully, I look at it differently. To me, "on demand" would be attempting to utilize her alleged ability at the specific request of someone, whether she was successful or not, in contrast to, say, looking at a television screen and, of her own volition, "seeing" something about a celebrity on the screen (which she has claimed she has done).

I didn't mean that anyone can demand that she "see" something, just to attempt to "see" something.

 

[Pup]

Pup:
When I conduct tests to find out if I can perform under those test conditions I push myself just to find out what the limits of the perceptions are.

Here's what I don't understand. The way you've described your ability, I'm picturing it something like normal vision, only of course you're seeing things that normal people don't. But it's not a matter of hunches, hints, guesses. There's a bright green thing right there. Or a white glob. Or a view of veins and arteries. Either these colors/shapes/views appear to you, or they don't, but you can't force yourself to see them if they don't come.

Okay, fine.

The question is not whether you see these things. I think most of us believe that you do--at least I believe you. Synesthesia and similar visual anomalies are unusual, but not unheard of.

The question is whether these things provide you correct information that you couldn't get through other means. Are you really seeing inside someone's body, or is it just an illusion? Do you really see certain chemicals in certain colors in certain situations consistently, or is it just a random visual oddity with no correlation?

So I don't understand the concept of pushing oneself, or guessing. The way I'm picturing it, you look at someone. Either you can see inside their body, or you can't. Or when you look at a beaker of a chemical, either you see an odd color or you don't. You would know whether you do or you don't. Like I can look at my TV and say, yep, it's turned on, I see a picture. Or no, it's dark.

If you don't see something, well, you just don't. No test possible.

If you do see something, then the question is whether what you're seeing is accurate.

So what I don't understand is, why guess? How do you even guess, with this ability? If I was supposed to say what was on my TV, and the screen looked dark to me, I couldn't begin to guess beyond random chance, what might be broadcast, and I'd know I was only guessing randomly, because I'd know I wasn't seeing anything.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I quote myself as having said to Professor Yaffle in the private message I sent him concerning the little girl's health that what I say is "utter nonsense".

So when you looked at the picture, did you or didn't you "see" what was wrong with her? I'm guessing the answer was no. But wouldn't it be cool if your response still turned out to be correct in all its details, huh?

That little bright hope of "wouldn't it be cool" is what drives people to fool themselves.

Otherwise, why bother to respond? Why not just say, nope, don't see anything?

 

[Pup]

Well, respectfully, I look at it differently. To me, "on demand" would be attempting to utilize her alleged ability at the specific request of someone, whether she was successful or not, in contrast to, say, looking at a television screen and, of her own volition, "seeing" something about a celebrity on the screen (which she has claimed she has done).

I didn't mean that anyone can demand that she "see" something, just to attempt to "see" something.

Okay, that makes sense too. I think "on demand" could be interpreted either way.

It certainly sets up all kinds of social/psychological issues if one becomes known as the kind of person who can (even sometimes) provide answers on demand to questions that others can't answer. That kind of "on demand," which you're talking about, leads down a path with certain temptations.

 

[desertgal]

As I said the perceptions from that picture are to be considered nonsense.

Wow. Earlier, you claimed...

I have had experiences of detecting information from photos, although not often. I do recall one incident where a mother showed me a picture of her daughter and asked me to describe her health problems. I did so without any prior knowledge and according to the mother I was fully correct. I do detect information about the health of people on television, although this occurs more often than with photos, and has also been confirmed as accurate many times

...to validate that you had, in fact, made a correct diagnosis from a picture, but now:

Those perceptions are just "nonsense".

You can't confidently diagnose from photos or television. and the results are questionable if you do.

Even though you claimed that you accurately detected, "many times" something from those mediums, that claim should be completely disregarded as evidence of your alleged ability, since you only want to be tested with live person demonstrations.

Your goalposts are doing the conga.

 

[desertgal]

It certainly sets up all kinds of social/psychological issues if one becomes known as the kind of person who can (even sometimes) provide answers on demand to questions that others can't answer. That kind of "on demand," which you're talking about, leads down a path with certain temptations.

True, and in light of this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130587, it appears to be a path that VfF is considering.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Anita, your claim is that you can spot current medical information out of people if you see them live, and you think that you can do this in a way that is not known to current science. Ok. I think it would be best for everyone to just stick with this and forget everything else for now. I'm pretty sure your local skeptics group will arrange something for you in a short notice.

You could also ask if people from this forum would be willing to meet you so you could do a reading on them?

All the best to your tests, and remember to report back.

K4

 

[desertgal]

Anita, your claim is that you can spot current medical information out of people if you see them live, and you think that you can do this in a way that is not known to current science. Ok. I think it would be best for everyone to just stick with this and forget everything else for now.
K4

Fair enough.

 

[Lennyhipp]

This whole forum is pretty funny...

VFF,
I came here from your post on the news story about psychics on the front page of SWIFT.

Reading through a couple of pages, it seems to me you're crying for attention. You're making spurious claims, but the few times on here you've tried your abilities you fail epically, then make excuses about why you failed. If the "abilities" only work when in person, stop making claims that you can do it from photos.

About your diagnosis with Uncle Yimminy, you failed to get a single thing right, but wanted to take credit for many things that were either vaguely similar, or things that you noticed, but failed to mention! Sorry, but in my book (and any sane observer) your abilities have produced ZERO correct guesses.

I'll check in from time to time to see if you're ever tested under proper conditions, (and good luck with it) but it seems to me like you're not interested in being tested, you just want some pen pals because you've got nothing to do!

My guess? (i should be a psychic, because I'm 100% confident I'll be right in this case) That you will fail just as miserably in person. I have SEVERAL well documented (in my medical record) maladies and have had 3 major operations and continue to have several medical conditions, and would be happy to volunteer for your services, and will GLADLY bring complete medical profile and x-rays for my proof.

Let's get you tested already.

Len

 

[Ashles]

ETA: One professor of physics suggested that what I refer to as vibrational information may in fact be the use of thermal information, in which case a video would not transmit that information, so I can not conclude no ability just yet.

I'm surprised everyone has ignored this.

For clarity were you talking to this professor of physics about your claimed ability?
Or were you generally referring to 'vibrational information'?
What was the context?
Is this professor contactable?

Also, don't you feel a thermal test would be incredibly easy to set up?
Just casually you could see if a radiator was on or off.
It seems strange you would mention this yet seem to have never made any effort to test this.

Finally, would you object to a proposed chemical identification test in which you only made an identification if you were sure your ability was working?
So, much like your medical testing protocol, you can reject a test instance if you are unsure or feel your power is not working.
Surely that would be fair enough.
(If not how can you possibly have reached any conclusions about identifying elements up until now if you never have confidence of when this chemical ability is working or not?)

There must presumably be instances where you feel confident to say "I definitely feel my chemical ability is working in this instance" otherwise it makes a mockery of your previous claims of being able to identify elements.

 

[Old man]

The cereal tests so far have had very good results, although nothing can be concluded yet.

No, when you tightened controls, your accuracy went down. That's not 'good' results.

Yes one of my "specialties" is to know when people have to pee.

Every mother can do that!

I will not include this in my observations. I am working to test my claim on live persons and this was not such an experience. Also this was not automatic information but information obtained from effort that I was not confident in. All information on the observations page (www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html) was such that I was confident in, therefore their accuracy counts toward or against the credibility of the ability.

Cherry picking.

I say that there is a very specific small region on his abdomen, right below the sternum, 1.5 cm wide vertically and 4 cm wide horizontally, in which the small intestine has a tendency of locking up, which would lead to a sensation not of pain, but strain. This information was absolutely correct...

No, Anita, it isn’t. In a normal human being, the small intestine is much lower than that. Yes, you claimed that his anatomy is ‘unusual’, but neither you nor he have confirmed it.

Why is it deluded to then conclude that there may be an extrasensory perception and to proceed toward tests of scientific standard?

See above.

I am troubled by the people that are demanding proof NOW, and by the people that seem to be ridiculing you. Like UncaYimmy, I think that's there's hope for you, and I'd like to see you continue to post about your tests and the results of them.

However, I also understand the impatience of others. Every time I've felt that I was 'unusual' in anyway, I immediately tested it to death. It's hard to understand why you don't do likewise, especially with a 'power' as strong as your alleged medical diagnostic ability.

 

[volatile]

Seems to me as if she only knows if the feeling is reliable or not after she's found out whether or not she was correct...

In other words - she's guessing, and when she finds out she's guessed wrongly, she knows her powers weren't working that time. Classic confirmation bias, wrapped up in a little post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc reasoning, with a sprinkle of post-hoc rationalisation to finish the mix off.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

That's pretty much why I would like her to tell me how confident she is about what she saw in the baby photo, before I go through it with her.

 

[Ashles]

At the moment it does seem a lot like guessing and then whenever there is a hit the ability was working and when there is a miss it was just a guess or 'finding out the limits of the ability'.

I agree completely with Professor Yaffle - in any testing (whether casual on this thread or official) it now seems very important to get clarification as to whether each response is considered by VfF to be an actual example of her ability or just guessing.