Vision From Feeling

[Locknar]

I haven’t been around long but I think we could add to that list the failure to come up with a single specific testable claim and active avoidance of being pinned down on same.

Read the link "Simpson vs Randi" in my signature if you want to see a true "woo woo" in action.

desertgal:
It means you.
You have no credibility as a skeptic or an objective critical thinker.

You're saying it does not make it so.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Professor Yaffle:

So then my concerns about the peanut oil still stand. Why is peanut oil something that you have to use effort for (as you stated earlier)? Surely because you believed it to be rare, it would stand out to you (as things which are unusual stand out for you, as you just confirmed).

I suppose (derivatives of) peanut oil in the body is in itself not strange since it is a nutrient, so it won't catch my attention as a perception on its own. Then when taking a closer look at this person I noticed an abnormally large amount of oil (derivatives) in the heart. And then I perceived that it felt like peanut oil. I hope this clarifies. If not - ask again.

Akhenaten:

What's really hard to understand though, is that you've allegedly been investigating this ability since 2007 and yet haven't done even the simplest of tests to eliminate cold reading. It would take considerably less time to do than it takes to type out indignant responses here, and might also be considered a more scientific approach.

Impatience. The majority of this time was spent in a waiting game with the IIG, and that was how I thought a paranormal investigation takes place. In December last year I met with the local skeptics group who advised me to conduct a study. So I am now placing my efforts into having the study. This claim concerns other people and their health and I will not stand on a soapbox and approach this wrecklessly.

Claimant to what? Required by whom? Test protocol?

Claimant of medical perceptions from live people. This claim will hopefully become more specific after the study, such as specifying the ailment that will be tested for. I am required to make the initial suggestion of test protocol, by testing organizations as well as the local skeptics group, and I agree to that. What do you mean "Test protocol?" Don't you know what that is?

In any case, your logic seems a little askew. If your own testing revealed that you couldn't read people through a screen then what, and with whom, would you be subsequently discussing further investigation? Why would you be making any claims at all?

Good question and I'm glad you brought that up. If I can not perform with a screen then perhaps, and that is for the testing party to decide on, there are ailments that can not be detected by ordinary means even without the use of a screen. Just in case there were an ability that is blocked by a screen. Who knows. I'm not concluding on any. The study will tell me more about what to think.

I think you might be missing the point here. You told your three favourite professors about your alleged ability and they didn't believe you. You, being a scientist, must have known this would be the case because you have no evidence, so why did you do it?

I didn't tell them to convince them or to have them believe me. I just wanted to share about the experience with them, because I think the perceptions are interesting and I thought they might appreciate knowing about it.

The truth is, however, that I think most of us are having a hard time believing that you could tell three of your professors the things you've told us and not have them take any interest at all, regardless of evidence.

I did tell three professors, one of them even expressed great interest in being updated on the progress of my investigation.

You don't get to set your own credibility level, I'm afraid. Nor the criteria by which other people ascribe you one.

No, the credibility of the fact that I told three professors is irrelevant. Sorry.

Also I think you've (again) been tricked into "bringing some kind of evidence that we spoke". That was easy.

Really? So you think it seems that I didn't speak to them? To me that just shows how vaguely your beliefs are formed. I did speak to them. But that is beside the point.

Yeah, they didn't believe you. Imagine that.

Of course they can not believe that I'd have some ESP ability, especially without evidence and all. Why on earth would I expect or even demand them believing. You are stating the obvious.

They have agreed to no such thing. Stop lying and making false assumptions or trying to drag my university into this.

How could anyone here do that and why do you think anyone here would want to?

Excuse me? I've seen plenty of lies here from you skeptics. PLEEENTY of false assumptions. And plenty of attempts of involving my university. Stop posting garbage.

That's right. I'm already involved in letting the IIG West test my claim.

That is an exaggeration of the actual situation. Nobody, anywhere, is testing any of your claims.

We are still in progress. Whether you like to imagine that or not.

This is not the MDC forum. There are no requirements here other than our membership agreement. Your theories, if they're presented here, are fair game for discussion.

Nah, some other skeptics already made it clear that theories aren't welcome.

When did we vote on this agreement not to discuss certain things?

You can find a post about it somewhere.

What goes on in your mind is unrelevant. As I mentioned, you don't get to decide your own credibility.

My credibility should also not be decided based on your and other skeptics' misunderstandings.

Is this thread a synonym contest or something? Have we conducted a survey of evidence to investigate the study for a test to make a claim of anything yet, or is that still upcoming?

Survey, study, and test are not synonyms. Survey is when I go out in public and write down my perceptions. Study is when I arrange to meet with volunteers who let me see them, I write down my perceptions, and attempts are made at establishing accuracy. Please read www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html before posting anything at all regarding my intentions behind the study. A study is not a test and can not prove in favor of the paranormal claim. A study tries out various test conditions to learn more about the claim. A test is when all criteria have been established and will conclude on the claim.

We most certainly do trust that you believe the things you say. We also have very strong reasons to trust in reality, which tells us that the things you believe are cause for concern. You SHOULD feel compelled to further investigation, by qualified people, as to the source of your delusions.

I have apparently accurate medical perceptions. No reason to concern. I'll just have a study and a test to find out the actual accuracy and to learn more about it. If it is cold reading, for instance, it is a darn fascinating case of a cold reading.

In other words, they saw nothing to test. Nobody does. Are you not at least a little worried about that?

Sure there is something to test. We just need to figure out what specific ailment, and what particular test conditions I can agree to.

You need to stop this "apparent accuracy" nonsense too.

Apparent accuracy means that someone says I was accurate. Or that I perceive something and later I find out even though I never said anything about what I perceived that I was right. Apparent accuracy is not a nonsense term. It includes the acknowledgement that the accuracy may not be real. All it means is that in spite of ample opportunity for inaccuracy, there has been none. It is not nonsense.

Your need for attention is what insists/demands that you make these posts. Don't bleat so much, because at least it's working.

I'm here to discuss protocols etc. But all I see is misunderstandings and personal attacks.

Your selective and unacknowledged editing of other peoples quoted posts before inserting your responses is dishonest and misleading.

I quote the portions of the text that I am replying to. The reply itself is designed for the entire paragraph that was involved. And while we're asking, why don't you stop stating the obvious as well as stop making incorrect assumptions?

JWideman:

No Ashles, all we see are more and new examples of your misunderstandings.

"we"? Do you mean the royal "we", or are you referring to the voices in your head?

I and anyone who reads Ashles' posts. You will see her misunderstandings, whether you detect them as such or not.

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
It means you.

Is that funny to you, Anita? To continually ridicule me because I admitted to having a treated personality disorder? To call me "delusional" and laugh behind your computer screen?

You have no idea what schizotypal disorder means. None. At all. You are simply using the term, to me, and to Cuddles, as an insult - and from where I sit, that is as despicable as it gets. Really sleazy, Anita.

Tell me something, are we mostly concerned with dealing with the truth, here in this thread?

Well, WE are. YOU aren't. You haven't said one true thing yet. Merely delusional babbling.

Then why object when I speak up against misconceptions?

When they happen, be my guest. What I've seen so far, from the other posters, is confirmed apparent accuracy.

I envision myself in Stockholm already next year. I'm from Sweden you know.

To the embarrassment of most Swedes...

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:

Yes, but if you say you cannot perform with a screen how do we control for cold reading? I don't understand why blood disorders are unsuiatble for your investigations.

To have no screen on a test is only permissible if there are ailments to test for that are inaccessible to cold reading. But I don't know about that, so I am going to try out some good test conditions such as screen. If you read my previous reply to your question but I will answer it again in the very same way. Some blood disorders have externally detectable symptoms. I'm surprised you don't realize that. If I had suggested blood disorders for a test, I'd be criticized for that. If you suggest blood disorders then nobody seems to react. I'll just say it again: some blood disorders can have detectable symptoms that show on the skin.

That has become a bit of a mantra for you now.
It's simply unbelievable that you wouldn't yourself involve your University in this research (apart from the fact you have three times, plus an actual study involving the ideas!).
So the 'don't drag my school into this' plea is rather disengenuous.

I confided to them on a personal level. I do not want involvement beyond that.

I notice one of them "expressed tremendous interest and curiosity in knowing more" but never took it any further themselves.

Why should they. Someone else is already doing the testing.

Another thought it was "thermal information". What? He encounters a girl who can see thermal information, who apparently has receptors that operate outside of the visible EM spectrum and... also does nothing about it?

Someone else is already testing for it. Besides I did not present the information to be taken as evidence. I just wanted to share an experience.

My refusal to discuss unrelevant topics that do nothing to progress the investigation does not in my mind take away from my credibility as a paranormal claimant.

In the eyes of many here, including myself, it actually does.
But an independent test would render that irrelevent.

So, the fact that I didn't want to talk about whether I'm from Sweden or not takes away from my credibility, since I wanted to focus on the investigation itself and not on irrelevant topics? Don't be ridiculous.

The test isn't happening. Now it seems like even the 'study' isn't happening. Not that it is likely to add much anyway.

Both will happen. Maybe not as fast as you would personally like.

Yes because scientists have never been able to conduct tests studying everyday experiences.
Where do you get this nonsense?

With everyday experience I mean everyday phenomena. To test something that occurs in the world. And that is what is typically tested for. And, before you say that my claim is not even occurring in the world, it is. The everyday phenomenon to be tested is, "how come I perceive medical perceptions when I look at people, will it persist in a test that excludes cold reading, and what natural origin of the perceptions could be concluded?"

And why is it okay if another University contacts you? But not okay if you contact them? Why does that suddenly make it conceptually completely different?

Because, dear Ashles, my university is where I work and study. Just accept that I think it makes a difference, and live with it.

You have unilaterally decided to focus on the one aspect of your 'ability' that is the hardest to test in a controlled way.

the most frequent and occurs without much effort from me due to being where most of my experience is at.

Maybe one of the other 'abilities' is equaly strong. We'll never know because you ignore them.

I already know which one occurs the most frequently and most clearly. It is also the one I have actively practiced and enhanced by experience.

We can't necessarily even trust that. For all we know you may be lying.

Well, I'm not lying.

You think HEALTHY - ILLNESS = CURE is some form of scientific analysis? Some form of useful concept?

It explains how I add or subtract vibrations in my mind to yield resulting vibrations that I translate into an answer. I will not discuss my ideas of science applications.

Please abandon your obsession with my science ideas. I will not discuss them further no matter how you go about.

No one is forcing you to except your own compusion to do so. I don't finish my posts moaning that it took me a while to write them.

No Ashles, you posted time and time again demanding that I present quotes to where I described what I mean by vibrational algebra. You called me a liar and wouldn't stop. So I had to take the time to carefully compose a post with all the relevant quotes to satisfy your obsessive need to know. If I hadn't done so, I'd feared that this thread would never hear the end of it. And I resent being called a liar when I'm not lying and when there is no evidence to indicate or even suggest that I'd be lying. So I had all reasons for clearing out your misunderstanding. Once again.

Attempts to control the posting behaviour of others will not meet with any success here.

Posting behavior such as calling me a liar when I'm not lying, or going on and on about misunderstandings is not something I take kindly.

I don't think Einstein delayed his research into the photoelectric effect because he just had to write long letters explaining everything to anyone who questioned his work.

In that case it sounds to me like this isn't the Forum of discussions toward my investigation. If Einstein would have intended to collaborate with certain others in order to have his discovery published and all those people could have done is distract with nonsense, then I think he would have found another group of people to collaborate with. And I think I am about to do the same. This is not productive. Rather than receiving encouragement toward planning a study, you guys go on and on about ridiculous misconceptions and insults against me.

 

[desertgal]

skeen:
I am not lying. Wait a few years and we'll see if my ideas of scientific application lead anywhere.

Delusion.

desertgal:
Not so. Many cases of accuracy were confirmed with evidence. Or established in ways where anyone's (including mine) intentions of desired accuracy would have had no say. However these are still not formal evidence to you guys that they took place. Hopefully the study will bring some up. Some documented cases.

Delusion.

I have not concluded that the perceptions would be reality based and that is how I hold no belief in them. As far as I am concerned they are nothing but impressions unless proven otherwise. The outcome of a test will let me know where to place my belief. I do believe in that I experience perceptions. Yes I take it for granted because it is no big deal to me (and I'm here not because I'm making a big deal out of it but because I'm going to have an investigation into them). I do need confirmation and verification to establish actual accuracy.

Delusion.

Don't pull fragments of quotes out of context like that. Besides, the "main" ability is medical perceptions from live people. I have never considered any of the other aspects to be part of the claim that I want to have tested.
I detect chemicals without ill effect when the perceptions appear on their own. When it comes to having to search for perceptions or doing forced perceptions it can lead to discomfort. Do not take things out of context. With ill effects and without ill effects refer to two very different cases of chemical perceptions. That's like if I said that the sky is blue in the daytime and the sky is black at night, you would pull out quotes and claim that I've said that "the sky is blue" and then "the sky is black" and claim that I'm making contradictions. Stop being silly. You're just ridiculous.

Delusion.

That was a joke. I never meant that.

Lie.

See the lower half of post #1267.
Apparent accuracy was established for all past experiences of medical perceptions, and for many perceptions no accuracy was obtainable. The small intestine being associated to the condition of strain below the sternum is the so far only suspicious detail, yet has not been confirmed accurate or inaccurate.

Delusion.

I am not "always accurate". I have been accurate with apparent accuracy in the past and always, yet I do not conclude that study and tests wouldn't reveal inaccuracy. And I welcome that, even it would be progress in my claim.

Delusion.

I've consistently stated that cold reading can be available and is a possible source of perceptions. Yet I've experienced perceptions that compel me to investigate that.

Delusion.

I acknowledge the possibility.

Delusion.

You bet.

Which proves you are a liar.

My claim is medical perceptions from live people. Is and has been.

Delusion.

Not at all.

Delusion.

 

[desertgal]

I hate to say, but very typical in all aspects of the other "woo woo's" that have been here....Historian, Corn Dog George, Creekfreak, etc.

All passionately believe their woo woo, has ZERO understanding why others do not, and reject and any all logical arguments counter to their belief.

Same day, different schtick?

You noticed that too did ya? It is really kind of sad. Making it worse is, with her taunting "skeptics are wrong again" (my paraphrase) comments it is obvious she feels she is making clear, valid, logical arguments.

I hope she gets the mental health help she needs.

I wouldn't count on it. She is getting better at projecting, though.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

I think that the fact Anita seems to think that 'delusional' and 'schizotypal' are insults says a lot about a) her own attitude to mental illness and b) why she feels we're insulting her.

Mental symptoms and illnesses are not a sign of weakness or anything to be ashamed of; neither are they to be thrown about as insults as Anita is doing. Anita needs feel no shame in seeking medical attention to see whether her apparent delusions are symptoms of mental illness, any more than she would feel shame at seeking medical advice to see whether her sneezing might be flu.

The flipside of this is that neither should she try to inflict shame on others by using their admitted past medical problems against them. I too have had depression, including psychosis, and it was the scariest thing ever, so I sympathise with any who've had it or might have it.

 

[desertgal]

Simply by doing so I would consider it fair to lend the word algebra to describe what I do. But this refers to my perception and not to established mathematics.

In other words, it is a bogus, made up term, based on her delusions and hallucinations.

No Ashles, all we see are more and new examples of your misunderstandings. I'm glad you're having fun with your delusions, though.

More projecting.

(I give her two posts before she picks up on that term and starts using "projecting" as an insult.)

 

[Akhenaten]

UncaYimmy:
I resent this paragraph, because I do acknowledge the possibility that my perceptions may be the result of cold reading for instance, and the possibility that my "apparent" accuracy may not be accuracy at all. These are things that can not be revealed in my everyday experience of the perceptions, and that is why I am looking forward to the study and the tests. And don't forget that I claim to have had experiences where the (apparent!) accuracy was established by means other than me speaking about what I had claimed to have perceived. But all these are reasons for me to look for a real test that will not allow cold reading, will only account for real and actual accuracy and where no one's intentions of me being correct would have any say in things one way or the other. And most of the perceptions I've had that were confirmed accurate were such that can be proven with a scar or other physical evidence. I resent having my evaluation of my awareness of the claim and my intentions with the claim trashed like this. Bless your heart.

Now you've latched onto cold reading or doting friends as the only alternatives to having a paranormal ability. Why don't you take any notice of the alternative being offered most consistently by the most people? It's the easiest to eliminate, after all, and look how much less typing you'd have to do.

Still using "apparent accuracy" I see. You need to realise that the alternative to "actual accuracy" in the context of your ability is "no idea". Nobody will argue about you having that.

Again I resent that. I've experienced plenty situations of confirmed apparent accuracy where the sense of accuracy was not due to my interpretation or intentions. And really, the headache and nausea came first and inaccuracy in the cereal tests came after. I have never backed off when brought towards progress in testing my main claim of medical perceptions in live people. What I don't want to hear? Ahem.

Confirmed apparent accuracy? I'm starting to have headaches and nausea myself. There might be something in this after all.

desertgal:
I've expressed some of my ideas of applying my perceptions of vibrations into conventional science, yet I decline elaborating much deeper when asked to. That is why I've presented some, yet I will not present more. I've expressed the amount that I am comfortable with.

You've expressed nonsense, offer meaningless evasions about it and then refuse further discourse, all finished off with a cute smiley. Desertgal will appreciate that little touch, I'm sure.

I realize and admit that this is confusing and contradictory. I confided in three professors who I trust and told them more on a personal level than professional. To not involve, means to not make it publicly known to all and to not engage in tests etc at my school.

If you realise that something you've typed is confusing and contradictory, perhaps you should consider not submitting it. That way you don't have to keep spinning more elaborate stories to cover the initial confusion and contradiction.

Ashles:
I am disappointed that you would post content from a private message publicly here on the thread. I am very disappointed with you and unhappy with your decision to do so.

The way you have been using PMs warrants that some of their contents be shared. You are attempting to back-channel the forum, and none of the other posters will wish to appear complicit in this.

That is for me to decide what content I consider to be personal nature to me. I have already asked that we not involve my university in our discussions and you are continuing to disregard my feelings.

As a general rule, if you think stuff is too personal to share with people you meet online, don't share it with people you meet online.

Don't you realize that your actions here might be harmful to my career or my life in general?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

What about coming here and posting as a paranormal claimant makes my personal life available for your attack? I must ask you to stop posting further comment about my intentions of science applications from my perceptions and any content regarding my professors or university. This discussions thread by how it is represented by yourself and certain others is hardly an example of excellent scientific thought nor objective critical inquiry into unexplainable phenomena, and I refuse to allow any of this to reach over to my professional life or university both of which I hold in very high regard.

You really don't want them to find out about this thread, do you? Do you understand yet why I consider your posting links to here on your website might be a footbullet? It's not much of a way to keep a secret.

Of course I will not trust you with a private message again. It means that some of your questions will remain unanswered. So when you ask something and I tell you that I have chosen not to elaborate, please stop asking time and time again and trying to turn that into something negative against me. Certain topics remain personal as well as irrelevant to our topic of my paranormal experience.

Did someone just say "Mission Accomplished"? I suspect your PMs may not always be as welcome as you might hope.

That is correct. I have asked that you skeptics allow that I have belief in my anecdotes and that is my opinion. However I have consistently stated that I do not expect any of you to take my anecdotes as evidence for yourselves.
I defend my experiences since they can not be washed away just because they are not proven for you. They remain having happened to me which is why I defend my choice to keep them.

We know you believe. That's the problem. You shouldn't believe because they're not evidence of paranormal ability. Not even to you. They are delusions.

I have absolutely never refused to accept that some of you don't believe my claims and stories. I've consistently stated that I understand that my anecdotes are not formal evidence that you guys could take part of.

It doesn't matter at all whether you accept our disbelief in your stories or not. The cause for concern is that you refuse to acknowledge, in any meaningful way, that your anecdotes do not even provide evidence for yourself unless you eliminate the possibility that it's all imaginary.

Please Ashles don't make me spend two hours again composing another post of my quotes! This time, why don't you go back a few pages and start reading before you accuse me of having beliefs and opinions that I just don't have.

Your continally instructing people who have obviously been following the thread closely to go back and read it is particularly irksome. You'll make someone cross if you're not careful.

If I want to correct misunderstandings that you guys posted in ways that were offensive and aimed as personal attack, then of course that makes me want to clear out the confusion. And if this is what I do, then since almost every post on this thread posted by you guys contains misunderstandings and false accusations... I am a very busy girl.

Misunderstandings and confusion there have been in abundance. Did you note this to be the nature of the JREF Forum before you joined, or have you only observed it in this thread? What conclusion does your answer lead you to?

It's true that your claims and arguments in support of them have been torn to shreds, but that's not the same as personally attacking you. If your claims had merit, they would withstand the offensive of critical thought, but they haven't.

The personalised comments directed at you have been generally quite positive from those who have spoken to you one-on-one, while those from others here have overwhelmingly expressed concern for your mental well-being.

There have certainly been some harsh responses to some of your posts, but this is a tough place to make extraordinary claims and have them unchallenged, and to be expected of a sceptical forum.

Winter Break. Once school starts (Monday), I will devote only a few hours a week to this. So if you guys post questions and comments to me, they'd better be good ones or they won't be answered!

It's your obsession, so follow it as you choose. Try and not be so pompous and arrogant about it though, or people might think you're turning troll.

<snipped personal messages that apparently aren't personal enough for a Personal Message>

 

[desertgal]

And I think I am about to do the same. This is not productive. Rather than receiving encouragement toward planning a study, you guys go on and on about ridiculous misconceptions and insults reality against me.

In other words, "I can't play you all for fools any more, so I will go find another group where I can."

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Professor Yaffle:

Anita - you say that you accept that your experiences may in fact be nothing more than coldreading. Do you entertain similar alternative explanations for your other experiences (like seeing/talking to ghosts, reading animal thoughts, seeing dinosaur ghosts, being, or coming from some star or another or whatever they were)? Or are you absolutely convinced that those experiences are exactly what they appear to be? If you entertain rival hypotheses, what might these be?

I have no evidence of any of these other perceptions or experiences and I do not bother with trying to merge them with reality. The reason I investigate the medical perceptions is because of the apparent correlation with reality that emerged on its own.

ETA: You seem to be spending a huge amount of time replying to this thread. I think I speak for most people here when I say I would be a lot more impressed with you if you replied to nothing I have said, didn't post for a week, and came back with an account of you spending the time doing a set of controlled experiments where you vary the parameters systematically and record the effects these parameters have on your ability. Its what the vast majority of scientifically minded people would have done as soon as they suspected they had such an ability and all the words in the world doesn't explain the fact that you haven't.

This is my last day available for responding. After that I won't be available. I thought I would do a thorough clean-up of the garbage posted here and try to freshen up the place with some truth so that it is ready for me when I come back again and post the results of the study.

Pup:
Post #1293. But I've experienced perceptions with apparent accuracy and where I do not know what cold reading would have been available. Why is it wrong of me to conclude to be interested in arranging a study and a test into these experiences, especially when I am fully prepared for a conclusion that all it is is cold reading or any of the other common reasons?

But it's not that I interpret the experiences of ghosts as being ghosts. I experience them as they are and in full accordance with the agreed upon definition of ghosts. It doesn't mean to conclude that it is an actual phenomenon, although I've had some pretty darn interesting experiences that make it impossible for me to conclude that they'd be entirely subjective.

I am a victim of unusual experiences. That occur so vividly and merely by being what they are and how they take place already are deeply entangled with reality. They take place in ways that make it impossible for me to conclude that they'd be nothing or entirely subjective. Scientist science-student or not, when you have these experiences you have them.

The apparent ability to receive knowledge that can't have been gotten by normal means will turn out, after more rigorous tests, to be caused by sensitivity to small mundane clues, logical guesses, support from agreeable subjects, recalling hits more than misses, and so forth.

Then if that's what they are, I am fully open to it. I just want to know where the (apparent) accuracy comes from. Regardless of where and how it comes about, I am curious.

Akhenaten:
Synesthesia, like malaria, are examples of diagnose. Just because they have not been concluded for, does not immediately imply that they have been concluded against. Because if no test has been done, you do not know whether a person has them or not. I REALLY don't see why this is argued against. If I am missing something, please explain rather than just state your disagreement.

... Ashles really seems like an expert. It is actually wonderful watching her talk about her area of expertise and when it is not aimed at me, that post is showing a new aspect to her. It really shows that she has a degree in these things.

You really are special aren't you? Who do you think you are to comment on other posters in this supercilious manner?

O-M-G!!! O-M-G!!! I can't believe it! This is the most ridiculous thing yet! I meant every word of what I said about Ashles and I meant all of it literally! Everything I say is twisted around and turned into something it's not! I can't even offer compliments without being attacked and lied about! Ashles did seem like an expert, since I know she is, in things like human perception during tests etc. I really did think it was wonderful to read about her writing about her area of expertise. I love when people specialize in various things and share their wisdom. I noticed a different "tone of voice" when she started to describe her specialty and it was wonderful to read. Everything I say is wrong, whether it's wrong to say or not.

As soon as your sincere and accurate reporting of the cereal tests began showing failures, you started making excuses and eventually gave them away altogether.

Headache and nausea appeared first. Inaccuracy resulted. The difficulty of performing increased until finally I was unable to continue.

BTW. Who are you addressing in the above quoted bit? It seemed strangely detached from the preceding paragraph.

The blue text were my thoughts.

Is that it? You "hope" for a lot of things, including that we'll be impressed by all this legal-sounding stuff.

Impressed? Legal-sounding stuff? Not at all.

It might be nice, but it won't be much help. If the ailments you perceive are normally non-detectable then you'll lack any corroborating evidence that they even exist. Bummer.

Undetectable for a person who is simply looking at a person. But detectable and verifiable by medical documentation.

What? A study to analyse which ailments can be detected by cold reading? That's a completely different subject to your claimed ability.

No. A study to see what ailments I claim to detect. Suitable ailments can then be selected from the list. Why can't you read the study.html doc.? I specificly asked you to read that page before you make any confused statements regarding my intentions with the study.

Locknar:

All passionately believe their woo woo, has ZERO understanding why others do not, and reject and any all logical arguments counter to their belief.

I do not believe in the claim. I just want to investigate the claim. I can only conclude on the claim based on evidence from a study or test. Of course I understand why others don't believe. Others have no first-hand experience or documented formal evidence to take part of. I reject attempts of over-throwing me when you all try to impose your perspective on mine, when mine contains experience that yours don't that give me a different perspective on it.

Hokulele:

It doesn't matter who suggested the term, what matters is your reaction to criticism of that term. Again, deflecting responsibilty doesn't advance the discussion.

I was not reacting against criticism against the word "perceptions". I was reacting against criticism against me as a person.

I have never told you what you may or may not do. Please extend the same courtesy.

I don't want to be attacked for using the word "perceptions" when it was Ashles who wanted me to use the word "perceptions". All I was asking is that you don't attack me when I've done nothing wrong.

Not according to several of the posts on the preceding pages, such as your continued insistence that you can detect chemical signatures, as evidenced by your discussion with Pup. If you want this statement to be taken seriously, treat it seriously.

I treat the main claim seriously, but you all don't.

 

[desertgal]

I think that the fact Anita seems to think that 'delusional' and 'schizotypal' are insults says a lot about a) her own attitude to mental illness and b) why she feels we're insulting her.

I agree. And I don't use "delusional" as an insult. She might think so, but, really, it's to point out that her thinking and her explanations are so far out in left field, reality couldn't see them with binoculars.

Mental symptoms and illnesses are not a sign of weakness or anything to be ashamed of; neither are they to be thrown about as insults as Anita is doing. Anita needs feel no shame in seeking medical attention to see whether her apparent delusions are symptoms of mental illness, any more than she would feel shame at seeking medical advice to see whether her sneezing might be flu.

I agree. I have tried to point that out to her. But, unfortunately, Anita has no intention of seeking help. She believes she is fine. The rest of us are just big bad meanies, ganging up on her with 'misconceptions' and 'false assumptions'. It's very sad, and her journey is NOT going to end well.

The flipside of this is that neither should she try to inflict shame on others by using their admitted past medical problems against them. I too have had depression, including psychosis, and it was the scariest thing ever, so I sympathise with any who've had it or might have it.

Well, fortunately, neither of us would or will feel shame at her insults. It's the difference between being enlightened about our disorders, and laboring under misconceptions about them, as Anita is doing.

In the end, all her "insults" do for me is to make me feel even more pity for her. She's a sad, sad girl.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I suppose (derivatives of) peanut oil in the body is in itself not strange since it is a nutrient, so it won't catch my attention as a perception on its own. Then when taking a closer look at this person I noticed an abnormally large amount of oil (derivatives) in the heart. And then I perceived that it felt like peanut oil. I hope this clarifies. If not - ask again.

Does anyone know if such a conclusion could be arrived at by conventional blood testing? Is there a significant difference in the types of organic molecules present in the blood after consumption of similar class of oil?

 

[sleepy_lioness]

I agree with all that, desertgal. As for her thinking it's you or the other skeptics who are suffering delusions, I understand that most mental health workers get told several times a week that they are ill by patients who consider themselves entirely sane...

I can't help feeling very sorry for Anita, as I remember delusions to be utterly terrifying. Perhaps this explains her obsessional need to stay up all night and write screeds and screeds. The good news, as we well know, is that help is available and it doesn't have to be this way. Anita, please do seek medical help as soon as you can.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Does anyone know if such a conclusion could be arrived at by conventional blood testing? Is there a significant difference in the types of organic molecules present in the blood after consumption of similar class of oil?

Well there must be peanut antigens present, for those that are allergic to respond to. I don't know whether their presence could be easily determined.

I just think it shows Anita's thought processes off quite well in that what she "sees" is an abnormal amount of peanut oil around the heart, and she thinks that the person replying that they ate something cooked in peanut oil (common, whether she knew that or not) is a hit and an example of her "apparent accuracy". There was no confirmation that there is a large amount of oil derivatives around that person's heart at all, which was her initial claim, but she still uses the example as one of her anecdotes.

This is a perfect example of cold reading to me. Imagine the following (totally fictional) scenario:

Anita: I see a lot of oil or fat in your heart. (note at this point, anything to do with heart disease would be taken as a hit)
Subject: I don't know what you mean.
Anita: Does peanut oil mean anything to you?
Subject: Oh I think my wife might have cooked with peanut oil last night...
Anita: I don't believe it, I was right again!!

Sounds exactly like a Sylvia Browne type plying their trade.

(ETA - I know Anita will protest that it ddin't happen like that at all, but doesn't everyone who comes away impressed with a psychic reading say the same? And I'm sure the psychics that believe what they are doing is real would say that too).

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

volatile:

You don't know what "cold reading" is, do you?

How would cold reading account for all of the experiences?

Locknar:

You're saying it does not make it so.

Yours saying things about me too don't make them so.

desertgal:

Is that funny to you, Anita? To continually ridicule me because I admitted to having a treated personality disorder? To call me "delusional" and laugh behind your computer screen?

Then why do you call me delusional? At least you're diagnosed and I'm not. And I'm not laughing. I'm just using the very same language style you've used against me. Now you see how that feels and what kind of impression it makes. I'm just showing you what you've been doing to me. I definitely don't think it's funny.

Well, WE are. YOU aren't. You haven't said one true thing yet. Merely delusional babbling.

Everything I've stated about my claim is true. Whereas you all misinterpret what I say and make up lies about it.

When they happen, be my guest. What I've seen so far, from the other posters, is confirmed apparent accuracy.

You guys are consistently concluding something that isn't true. It is alright to speculate, or to expect, or to suspect, but to conclude various things that aren't true, I don't like that.
And stop posting insults to me. That's all you do.

Not so. Many cases of accuracy were confirmed with evidence. Or established in ways where anyone's (including mine) intentions of desired accuracy would have had no say. However these are still not formal evidence to you guys that they took place. Hopefully the study will bring some up. Some documented cases.

You think this is delusion? Well it's not. Besides how would you know anyway, you have a "certain diagnose" that makes you unreliable when it comes to perceptions of reality regarding yourself and therefore also regarding others. I know it's rude of me to say so, but it is consistent in the manner of language you use against me. So now we are speaking the same language. Many cases of accuracy were confirmed with evidence. It is true. Of course that does not mean that the accuracy was due to ESP. It just means the perception I had was accurate. Every single word in that above paragraph was true. The fact that you argue otherwise means that you are delusional, which you are.

I have not concluded that the perceptions would be reality based and that is how I hold no belief in them. As far as I am concerned they are nothing but impressions unless proven otherwise. The outcome of a test will let me know where to place my belief. I do believe in that I experience perceptions. Yes I take it for granted because it is no big deal to me (and I'm here not because I'm making a big deal out of it but because I'm going to have an investigation into them). I do need confirmation and verification to establish actual accuracy.

Delusions? This is all true. You shouldn't even be posting here.

Don't pull fragments of quotes out of context like that. Besides, the "main" ability is medical perceptions from live people. I have never considered any of the other aspects to be part of the claim that I want to have tested.
I detect chemicals without ill effect when the perceptions appear on their own. When it comes to having to search for perceptions or doing forced perceptions it can lead to discomfort. Do not take things out of context. With ill effects and without ill effects refer to two very different cases of chemical perceptions. That's like if I said that the sky is blue in the daytime and the sky is black at night, you would pull out quotes and claim that I've said that "the sky is blue" and then "the sky is black" and claim that I'm making contradictions. Stop being silly. You're just ridiculous.

Not delusions.

That was a joke. I never meant that.

Not a lie.

I am not "always accurate". I have been accurate with apparent accuracy in the past and always, yet I do not conclude that study and tests wouldn't reveal inaccuracy. And I welcome that, even it would be progress in my claim.

Not delusion.

I've consistently stated that cold reading can be available and is a possible source of perceptions. Yet I've experienced perceptions that compel me to investigate that.

Not delusion.

I acknowledge the possibility.

Not delusion.

My claim is medical perceptions from live people. Is and has been.

Not delusions.

I think you are a mentally ill person and I worry about you. I don't think you should be posting here because you've gotten lost in a skeptics thread. You are not a skeptic. You are just deluded.

sleepy lioness:

I think that the fact Anita seems to think that 'delusional' and 'schizotypal' are insults says a lot about a) her own attitude to mental illness and b) why she feels we're insulting her.

To conclude that someone has these diagnoses without evidence for it is insulting. I do not have the symptoms. They are not insults in themselves, but they were used as insults against me. When I don't even have them.

Akhenaten:

Still using "apparent accuracy" I see. You need to realise that the alternative to "actual accuracy" in the context of your ability is "no idea". Nobody will argue about you having that.

If I experience a perception of a medical ailment and it is verified that the perception represented accurate information, then it is apparent accuracy. Meaning that the perception was accurate. But not implying that cold reading did not take place, or that ESP did take place. But it was accurate. With apparent accuracy. The fact that you argue against my use of the word shows how ridiculous you are.

Confirmed apparent accuracy? I'm starting to have headaches and nausea myself. There might be something in this after all.

If I describe perceptions and my description correlates with actual health information, then there is accuracy involved. However I state "apparent" accuracy because the person could have been lying, or mistaken about their health.

You've expressed nonsense, offer meaningless evasions about it and then refuse further discourse, all finished off with a cute smiley. Desertgal will appreciate that little touch, I'm sure.

The only nonsense around here is you.

The way you have been using PMs warrants that some of their contents be shared. You are attempting to back-channel the forum, and none of the other posters will wish to appear complicit in this.

Ashles was expressing unwillingness to accept that what she was asking me of was something I did not want to share openly. So to settle her curiosity I decided to send her a PM with some form of an explanation, so that she could obtain some peace of mind while still I hadn't posted it here.

As a general rule, if you think stuff is too personal to share with people you meet online, don't share it with people you meet online.

I wasn't about to share it with people online. I just wanted to help Ashles out.

Did someone just say "Mission Accomplished"? I suspect your PMs may not always be as welcome as you might hope.

What do you mean my PMs might not always be as welcome as I might hope. I sent Ashles a reply to her long-lived question and there is no reason to expect that the reply wasn't welcome.

We know you believe. That's the problem. You shouldn't believe because they're not evidence of paranormal ability. Not even to you. They are delusions.

I believe that I've had apparent accuracy. Of course they are not evidence of paranormal ability. That fact is already implied in the word "apparent". They are not delusions.

It doesn't matter at all whether you accept our disbelief in your stories or not. The cause for concern is that you refuse to acknowledge, in any meaningful way, that your anecdotes do not even provide evidence for yourself unless you eliminate the possibility that it's all imaginary.

The anecdotes have evidence that I acchieved accurate health information. The question remains what the source of the information was. Was it cold reading, or what?

Your continally instructing people who have obviously been following the thread closely to go back and read it is particularly irksome. You'll make someone cross if you're not careful.

When someone asks me a question and I say that I've already answered it many times before in this thread, then I have every reason to recommend that they go back and read this thread. You be careful.

It's true that your claims and arguments in support of them have been torn to shreds, but that's not the same as personally attacking you. If your claims had merit, they would withstand the offensive of critical thought, but they haven't.

Have not been torn to shreds. The experiences persist in the way that they took place. Personal attacks include accusing me of being a liar, deluded or having schizotypal disorder when none are correct. My claims have merit and they have withstood all of the garbage on this thread.

The personalised comments directed at you have been generally quite positive from those who have spoken to you one-on-one, while those from others here have overwhelmingly expressed concern for your mental well-being.

My mental well-being is doing fine. I'm only investigating accurate medical perceptions and to find out the source of the information. Nothing deluded about doing that.

It's your obsession, so follow it as you choose. Try and not be so pompous and arrogant about it though, or people might think you're turning troll.

And you shouldn't act so rude and stupid.

desertgal:

In other words, "I can't play you all for fools any more, so I will go find another group where I can."

No. I am just tired of being called a liar when I wasn't lying, for instance. Having every single thing I say misinterpreted and twisted and to be made to sound like something it isn't and then turned into something hostile and negative against me. Your tactics are not productive in a paranormal or scientific investigation.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Sideroxylon:

Does anyone know if such a conclusion could be arrived at by conventional blood testing? Is there a significant difference in the types of organic molecules present in the blood after consumption of similar class of oil?

Who cares. It is unlikely to be part of a test protocol.

sleepy lioness:

I agree with all that, desertgal. As for her thinking it's you or the other skeptics who are suffering delusions, I understand that most mental health workers get told several times a week that they are ill by patients who consider themselves entirely sane...

There have been countless of false accusations posted on this thread and that is what I am responding to. If "delusions" means to hold belief in things that are not true, then most of you skeptics on this thread are responsible for that. That is all.

I can't help feeling very sorry for Anita, as I remember delusions to be utterly terrifying. Perhaps this explains her obsessional need to stay up all night and write screeds and screeds. The good news, as we well know, is that help is available and it doesn't have to be this way. Anita, please do seek medical help as soon as you can.

There is absolutely nothing terrifying about my perceptions. This is my last day posting here, that is why I stayed up all night. (Besides for many days now I've been somewhat nocturnal, tends to happen to a lot of college students who are on semester breaks. )

Professor Yaffle:
Post #1315,

I just think it shows Anita's thought processes off quite well in that what she "sees" is an abnormal amount of peanut oil around the heart, and she thinks that the person replying that they ate something cooked in peanut oil (common, whether she knew that or not) is a hit and an example of her "apparent accuracy".

If it is not possible to present inaccuracy to a perception then it has apparently been accurate. If I tell a person that they've eaten a lot of a certain type of food and they say no, then that is inaccuracy. If they say yes, then it is apparently accurate, meaning not necessarily accurate nor necessarily indicative of any particular type of ability. All apparent accuracy means is that it was not confirmed as inaccurate.

Don't be ridiculous, though. The peanut oil case is confirmed as neither accurate or inaccurate. From my observations page,

I will choose to rate the heart problem as "unverified as neither correct or incorrect" since I detected thick heart wall and that was not confirmed one way or the other.

Then why on earth do you start to write things like this,

Anita: I see a lot of oil or fat in your heart. (note at this point, anything to do with heart disease would be taken as a hit)
Subject: I don't know what you mean.
Anita: Does peanut oil mean anything to you?
Subject: Oh I think my wife might have cooked with peanut oil last night...
Anita: I don't believe it, I was right again!!

Please just admit that you made a mistake here. I clearly realize that the heart condition and oil incident can not be confirmed as accurate information. (Nor as inaccurate information.) Then why are you stating this garbage about me? Why do you have to be like all the other useless skeptics? I will not speak to you again until you admit that you were writing false assumptions and inaccurate garbage about me and then trying to use it against me to lower my credibility or what ever your plan was. And please admit that your statements about me in the post were not objective or science-minded since they were not.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Once again, Anita, neither I nor desertgal are attempting to diagnose you (desertgal has withdrawn her posting about schizotypal disorders). Delusions are symptoms, not illnesses. It's akin to observing that you're sneezing. It's not a diagnosis. Neither is it an insult.

 

[skeen]

Anita, you have totally convinced yourself that you're the victim, that you can't "win" one way or the other. This is true, you can't, but there's a very good reason for that. What you're saying is silly, and it doesn't make any sense.

You have all of reality against you. Everyone here agrees that you are delusional. When I asked if you knew you were lying, you told me you weren't lying. So my answer is, no, you don't know that you are lying. That doesn't mean you're not.

This is what always happens. The woo's simply go away. All we wanted was evidence. How could we possibly fight evidence? If you can provide it, it really doesn't matter what anyone says.

As it stands, no one in the history of mankind has ever proven these kinds of abilities. I just hope you seek professional help, because your delusions of grandeur or scary. The nobel prize? You really think this is a possibility for you? Oh gee.

 

[quarky]

"Paranormal" is getting the juice sucked out of it. Its not much fun anymore.

(sigh)

I wish someone would show up that claims to be able to fly, any time, any where.
And at the test, they would either fly, or not.

I've had a few un-normal things happen to me, mostly on tryptomines and phenethylamines...like being able to see with my eyes closed.
But there's no way I'd put it to a test. It would be illegal, for one thing. And I'd be paranoid to be under scrutiny in such a delicate, altered state.

If there exists anything paranormal, I should think it would avoid being put to a test...especially for money.

I haven't followed many of the claims, but I'm curious:

Have any of the applicants suggested that their winnings would go to a charity, up-front?