VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

[Senex]

How did Oscar Wilde get in here?

Is this part of the "radical gay agenda", or rga, as we call it?

If you people ran her off, I'll be pissed.

(I think I'm in love with her.)

The only one going to be run off is the homophobic guy with the quircky name. I haven't been flirting all this time just to have some rascal show up on the last page and pledge his love.

VFF, quarky reeks of insincerity. My pledge to watch your back while visiting haunted motel rooms is sincere.

 

[quarky]

Crud.


I can't compete with sincerity.

 

[Senex]

Crud.


I can't compete with sincerity.

hehehe... I'm notching my belt as a type this. Another virtual rascal I ran off in pursuit of a virtual date. I'm the Hugh Heffner of virtual dates.

 

[Moochie]

But she is naughty. I think we can all agree to that

Oh yes, very naughty indeed.


M.

 

[quarky]

Senex?

Stay away from Kurious Kathy, and I'm outta here.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

See Anita - you can get lots of attention without believing you can see into people's bodies. AND the bonus is that it is positive attention.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Well. There are a lot of things I could say to this, but not without embarassing everyone.

 

[jhunter1163]

My ex girlfreind has a retired fox hound. She takes it to the park for exercise. It licks her face. And pants.

I have a Labrador retriever I take to the park for exercise. She licks my face. And pants. I mean she breathes heavily, not that she licks my pants.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

First study was held

Alright my dear well-behaved and most patient Skeptical ladies and gentlemen. I've had the first real larger-scale study earlier this morning and afternoon. The results will be posted explicitly on my website www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html as soon as the material becomes available to me. I have left it in the reliable hands of the study participants so that none may ever suspect me of tampering with the data. The data will be presented as is and each may draw their own conclusions. I will of course be listing on my website all the things that I personally have learned and gained from the study.

The next step in my investigation will be either a second study, a real test of my claim, or the falsification and termination of this investigation, depending on how I interpret the results. A second study would focus on supposedly undetectable health information as well as the trying out of various forms of screens that are between me and the volunteers.

A great thank you for those who participated with me in the study today. I couldn't have done it without you.

 

[Ashles]

Only the medical perceptions are under scrutiny here, for evidence and final conclusion. Only that, Ashles. Nothing else.

And by 'medical perceptions, presumably you mean your ability to 'see' at a molecular and organic level inside people's bodies?
Yes?
The claim you have refused to budge from since day one, despite all the other, better protocols and test areas discussed?

The 'medical perceptions' that are continually criticised for being too vague and subjective to test accurately, especially by means of the vague tests you propose?

I wonder if there was something you could test that would be even more subjective than that?

Anita, when are you going to tell all the fine people what this test actually studied instead of 'medical perceptions'...?

:

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita, when are you going to tell all the fine people what this test actually studied instead of medical perceptions...?

When I look at people I perceive automatic images of the inside of their bodies, I see tissues and organs, and health problems are highlighted in this vision. I also perceive feeling those persons, such as emotions, contraction, and other bodily sensations that the person would have from their point of view. These medical perceptions, as I call it, do not come with an immediate sense of reality or belief and I can clearly distinguish between this and my ordinary perception which has the same type of vision and senses as we all do. Furthermore, this extra information is not based on my logic or thinking, or even preconceived ideas or assumptions about the health of that person, because these two sources of information - the perceptions and logic - produce entirely different and contradicting information. Where the perceptions are far more accurate than my logic is in producing impressions of the health of others.

I experience many forms of automatic association of information that is reminiscent to synesthesia, such as associating color to the letter abbreviations of chemical elements or the variables of physics equations, or to just letters and numbers alone. To me most things come with many different aspects of perception, and through association. And I understand my medical perceptions to be related to all this other association I experience.

Synesthesia and association are by definition not mental illness. They are generally not even a handicap in life but produce enhanced learning capabilities and ways of relating to things that would otherwise be abstract or single-faceted information. My perceptions do not interfere with my life and there are no reasons for concern. I am also equipped with a normal and ordinary sense of perception to which the association is an addition on the side.

I am investigating the medical perceptions since I've experienced many cases of very interesting and compelling correlation between what I perceived and with the actual health of persons.

So this study was for me to gain more experience and exposure to my medical perceptions. To work with questionnaires and a reliable form of handling the data that eliminates suspicion of me tampering with the data or of adding or removing things. To learn more about what health information I perceive and which ones I am less likely to pick up on and under what conditions. Three persons worked on the study with me as controls and were also filling in health questionnaires alongside me so that my answers could be compared with someone else's, and they were encouraged to try any methods of guessing, cold reading, or statistics and demographics to acchieve high correlation with the volunteers' answers. More information about the purpose of the study, its objectives, what has been learnt from the study already and what more I intend to find out about it, and much more such as the actual documents that were used and all resulting data will be available at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html

The study studies my medical perceptions.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

And by 'medical perceptions, presumably you mean your ability to 'see' at a molecular and organic level inside people's bodies?
Yes?

My claim of perceiving visual images of organs and tissue from the inside of a person's body when I look at the person as well as felt information such as their emotions, the claim being that I've had reason to suspect this information to correlate with the actual health of persons in ways that should not be possible by ordinary means of human perception. It is not an established ability, just a hypothesis or a claim.

The claim you have refused to budge from since day one, despite all the other, better protocols and test areas discussed?

Ashles, it's like asking a marathon runner to swim across the English channel instead of letting him show what he can do in the skill where he excels the best. Let me choose what to investigate.

The 'medical perceptions' that are continually criticised for being too vague and subjective to test accurately, especially by means of the vague tests you propose?

The study begins that way, because the purpose of my investigation is not just to prove/falsify a paranormal claim but for me to learn more about my experience. I'm working toward an actual test that has no subjectivity and that is fully adequate from even your point of view I am sure.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Alright my dear well-behaved and most patient Skeptical ladies and gentlemen. I've had the first real larger-scale study earlier this morning and afternoon. The results will be posted explicitly on my website www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html as soon as the material becomes available to me. I have left it in the reliable hands of the study participants so that none may ever suspect me of tampering with the data.

If it is on YOUR website, how can we not suspect you of tampering with the data? Why can't they post it somewhere else?

The data will be presented as is and each may draw their own conclusions.

Which is why so many of us consider it such a waste of time. The conclusions should be self-evident and consistently drawn. Instead you've just played street psychic for your own gratification.

The next step in my investigation will be either a second study, a real test of my claim, or the falsification and termination of this investigation, depending on how I interpret the results.

Again, it shouldn't be subject to interpretation after the fact. But you refuse to acknowledge this.

A great thank you for those who participated with me in the study. I couldn't have done it without you.

Yes, you could have, but you have repeatedly chosen to ignore those suggestions.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Btw Ashles,

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

If it is on YOUR website, how can we not suspect you of tampering with the data? Why can't they post it somewhere else?

Good point. I will see what I can work out with the participants, I have given this some thought myself already. I really intend to provide reliable data from now on.

The data will be presented as is and each may draw their own conclusions.

Which is why so many of us consider it such a waste of time. The conclusions should be self-evident and consistently drawn. Instead you've just played street psychic for your own gratification.

Actually I said what I said because I knew that none of you would accept my conclusions. The first study is not really designed to be conclusive one way or the other, it is more about scouting out the area and finding out where to take it next.

Again, it shouldn't be subject to interpretation after the fact. But you refuse to acknowledge this.

I acknowledge it, it's just that you misunderstand the purpose of the first study and also you deny me the right to investigate my claimed experience in the way where I learn the most from it. I am already designing a second study which will be much more test-like than the first one and much more appealing to your palate. Babysteps UncaYimmy, not big giant paces or we might step over it and have to go back.

A great thank you for those who participated with me in the study. I couldn't have done it without you.

Yes, you could have, but you have repeatedly chosen to ignore those suggestions.

Oh Hon I wasn't referring to you! I meant the people who worked with me today on the actual study. And besides, I would be reluctant to conduct my investigation with anything less than skeptics because I find them to be the most reliable and objective, and again, I am not referring to you but to my local Skeptics.
ETA: But thank you UncaYimmy, we were using the questionnaires that enabled the volunteers to remain perfectly anonymous with regard to their answers, and that is thanks to you and that is why I am calling you Brilliant.

 

[Improbable Joe]

Which is why so many of us consider it such a waste of time. The conclusions should be self-evident and consistently drawn. Instead you've just played street psychic for your own gratification.


Again, it shouldn't be subject to interpretation after the fact. But you refuse to acknowledge this.

I emailed with this person a couple of times over this exact point. The results should be either positive, or negative... any result that needs to be interpreted counts as negative as far as I'm concerned.

One question: can it do its tricks through a thin curtain? Through a door?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Improbable Joe,
The study is not a test, the study is designed to teach me lots about the medical perceptions and the study is not designed to be able to provide any evidence in favor of the claim. That was the first study. I am already working on the second study which will be an improved version and more test-like than this first one.
My goal is not to just prove or falsify the paranormal claim but at this point, to learn more about the paranormal claim. And this knowledge is also necessary so that I can design a better test protocol. The second study will answer the questions about what type of screens I can use. Stay tuned and look for updates on that progress on my website. Thanks Joe.

 

[Improbable Joe]

Improbable Joe,
The study is not a test, the study is designed to teach me lots about the medical perceptions and the study is not designed to be able to provide any evidence in favor of the claim. That was the first study. I am already working on the second study which will be an improved version and more test-like than this first one.

My goal is not to just prove or falsify the paranormal claim but at this point, to learn more about the paranormal claim. And this knowledge is also necessary so that I can design a better test protocol. The second study will answer the questions about what type of screens I can use. Stay tuned and look for updates on that progress on my website. Thanks Joe.

Uh huh... except I don't think you'll ever take "fail" for an answer.


That's actually a good thing to establish up front: what result would you consider sufficient to abandon your belief in your own magical powers? Is there an outcome that would allow you to admit complete defeat, after which you would admit that you cannot ever do what you claim?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

The claim itself is falsifiable. The first study was not designed to prove nor falsify the claim, but to gather more experience and insight into the claim. A test will be able to falsify the claim and for the final test design I am consulting the testing side which will most likely be the Independent Investigations Group of Hollywood. We're not there yet. Sorry.

If you all excuse me, it's study time. I mean, Physics.

 

[Akhenaten]

Good point. I will see what I can work out with the participants, I have given this some thought myself already. I really intend to provide reliable data from now on.

As opposed to what you've provided before now?

Actually I said what I said because I knew that none of you would accept my conclusions.

That isn't required. You can conclude whatever you like, and so can we. Your ultimate goal is to produce self-evident results. Nothing else will suffice. If you ever publish any results they will have to speak for themselves, without the benefit of 27 interpretive Walls o' Text™.

The first study is not really designed to be conclusive one way or the other, it is more about scouting out the area and finding out where to take it next.

You've had months of some really clever people (not me) doing their level best to help you figure out where you should take it next, but you refuse to listen. Now those people are bored with the game, and are moving onto other projects. Some of us are even working together, which is nice.

I acknowledge it, it's just that you misunderstand the purpose of the first study and also you deny me the right to investigate my claimed experience in the way where I learn the most from it.

Not really. The purpose of the first study is to prevent you from proceeding to any kind of test of anything at all. I accept that you may not be aware of this yourself. I can't, of course, speak for everyone, but I'm in Australia, eh? How am I, for instance, denying you any right to do anything whatsoever. How are the others going about it? They never tell me anything, the Meanies™.

I am already designing a second study which will be much more test-like than the first one and much more appealing to your palate. Babysteps UncaYimmy, not big giant paces or we might step over it and have to go back.

You may have noticed, or maybe not, but ALL of your claims and activities are now under objective scrutiny by a dedicated group of people who have no interest in "appeal". Take whatever size steps you want to, it's just as easy to document them, no matter how big or small they might be.

Oh Hon I wasn't referring to you! I meant the people who worked with me today on the actual study. And besides, I would be reluctant to conduct my investigation with anything less than skeptics because I find them to be the most reliable and objective, and again, I am not referring to you but to my local Skeptics.

Sorry to disappoint, Sugarpie Sweetcheeks, but your attempts to cultivate your own group of skeptics hasn't gone too well so far. My own (free-range) skepticism says that there isn't much likelihood of that changing.