The VFF Test is On!

[VisionFromFeeling]

Which perceptions do you mean are harmless: the Revolutionary Army ghosts, the 'differences' of African-American anatomy to that of whites, being a 'walk-in' from Arcturus, being able to 'see' internal organs, having a '4.0' grade average?

1. I experience ghosts, but I do not claim that they are real. I do claim, however, that many cases have been very accurate. But it is not a paranormal claim. Just an experience. Just like I experience synesthesia. I see that hydrogen is always red, and nitrogen is green, but I do not claim that they actually have those colors.

2. Some medication are given in different types and doses for different races. So perhaps my perception of demographic differences in tissues is not that strange after all. So you think that human populations that have formerly been quite isolated from one another would have no differences? Skin color is a typical example, darker in sunny climates and lighter in the north to better absorb the vital ultraviolet rays. And me, being of Finnish heritage, sweat much less than most people and it is actually an adaptation for cold climates. Many populations in hot climates are tall, and in cold climates are shorter to preserve heat. Sickle-cell anemia as a defense against malaria. And other regional adaptations that translate into variation among different genetically isolated groups. If you just look at how different we all look on the outside, just imagine all the minute differences on the inside. By no means is this expressing racial intolerance. I think human diversity is wonderful.

3. Being a Star Person from Arcturus is not a paranormal claim. It is a personality characteristic and a cultural artifact.

4. My paranormal claim of detection of internal organs is harmless. I am promoting it from the point of view of skepticism.

5. I still contend that I have a 4.0. If I have one F because a professor was rude and I refused to attend his class I for one do not think that it takes away from my academic accomplishments.

I'd be willing to bet VFF hasn't 'blocked the remittent' on those woo-supporters. VFF's skepticism has been amply demonstrated by refusing to consider, at least on this thread, any mundane explanation of what VFF claimed to have perceived. Since when is that maintaining a skeptical position?

While I acknowledge what a false memory is, I know for a fact that my recollection of detecting that the left kidney was missing is not one. And I have no correspondence with woo-supporters. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception to learn more about your stance.

The nature of migraine episodes is that they are just that, episodes. I'm amazed VFF doesn't grasp why this means a 'one-off' att. treatment neither verifies nor falsifies anything. This has been explained repeatedly to VFF. VFF's own comments, as observed here and on other threads show that VFF has refused to understand what verification or falsification of migraine att. treatments actually entails. And, at least to me, playing 'doctor' with very real human suffering is not ethical.

Like I've said, the migraine claim is made by someone else, not me, and I am investigating it. So just because an investigation requires repeated trials, testing should be discouraged all together? Actually, it is unethical not to explore a possible new and effective treatment option for migraine sufferers, would there be one to be discovered.

VFF claims to say things as they are, does this include believing one is a 'walk-in' from Arcturus?

Personality characteristic and cultural artifact. Leave that alone.

I don't think it unreasonable that VFF's x-ray vision claim is perceived in the context of the woman's many posts here and elsewhere.

The paranormal claim will be viewed based on the evidence obtained at the IIG Preliminary demonstration, and not by your personal expressions. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception

However, the 21st is near.

7 days away.

All the best to the testers at IIG and many thanks for the hard work they've put into this demonstration!

Aren't they wonderful?

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

My interest in attempting another migraine treatment, this time with a Skeptic as the volunteer, arises from my desire to investigate the claim that a man is making whom I gave an attempted migraine treatment, with the expectation to falsify his claim.

Where is this man making this claim?

 

[SezMe]

My latest exchange with the IIG indicates that they do not know at this time if the test will be web cast. I've also suggested releasing the protocol at some time before the test but no decision has been made to date.

One week. At the very minimum, VFF is correct about that.

 

[Pixel42]

While I acknowledge what a false memory is, I know for a fact that my recollection of detecting that the left kidney was missing is not one.

The only way that you could know that for a fact is if you wrote it down before it was revealed, as you had ample opportunity to do - that being the whole point of the exercise. The very fact that you failed to write it down suggests that it is a false memory. Certainly if the perception was as strong as you are now remembering it you would have written it down, it is after all exactly the sort of thing you were hoping to experience when you did the experiment. In the unlikely event that it isn't a false memory then it is a coincidence, until and unless it is replicated. If you fail the IIG test then you will know for a fact that it was either a false memory or a coincidence. Won't you?

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

3. Being a Star Person from Arcturus is not a paranormal claim. It is a personality characteristic and a cultural artifact.

<snip>

No kind of sceptic ever wrote words like these. No kind of scientist ever wrote words like them either.

If you think that the IIG test is going to erase this and thousands of similar inane utterances then you are yet again sadly mistaken.

Claiming to come from another star is not, as you say, a paranormal claim. It is a completely abnormal and ridiculous claim and the fact that you keep making it, coupled with this drivel about it being "a personality characteristic and a cultural artifact" leaves very little doubt in many minds as to how successful the IIG demonstration will be.

There is, at the moment, only one claim you need to falsify, and that is the claim made by the vast majority of people with any knowledge of your fantasies; that you are incapable of analysing your own past experiences.

You cannot hope to falsify anything else, especially given that the meaning of the very word itself escapes you.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

The only way that you could know that for a fact is if you wrote it down before it was revealed, as you had ample opportunity to do - that being the whole point of the exercise. The very fact that you failed to write it down suggests that it is a false memory. Certainly if the perception was as strong as you are now remembering it you would have written it down, it is after all exactly the sort of thing you were hoping to experience when you did the experiment. In the unlikely event that it isn't a false memory then it is a coincidence, until and unless it is replicated. If you fail the IIG test then you will know for a fact that it was either a false memory or a coincidence. Won't you?

Regardless of anything, it was not a false memory. And I made the conscious choice to not write it down, because logically I was entirely convinced that a healthy young person such as Dr. Carlson couldn't be missing a kidney. At that time I assumed that the only person who would have had a missing kidney is someone who has had one removed due to illness, and would be older and also obviously ill and weak. I did not think of kidney donors, nor did I know at that time that some people are born with only one kidney. So, logically I was convinced that the perception was false. But the perception was clear and persistent. And on behalf of my previous interesting accurate perceptions I chose to not write this one down, thinking that if I am wrong about a kidney being missing, those past perceptions would not get the test that they are entitled to. Instead, I would come to stumble on what would be the single most compelling, but also most controversial and provocative, case of accurate medical perception. It was not a false memory.

 

[Pixel42]

I made the conscious choice to not write it down, because logically I was entirely convinced that a healthy young person such as Dr. Carlson couldn't be missing a kidney.

So you're saying you only note your perceptions if you think they're likely to be correct? You deliberately don't note anything that you think might turn out to be a miss? You realise that completely skews the results of your self testing, making it utterly useless?

And you have the nerve to call yourself a scientist!

 

[pakeha]

Ah, VFF strikes again.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5309427&postcount=441

I'd be hard-pressed to point out a single most hilarious point, though my personal favourite was VFF claiming being a 'walkin' from Arcturus is a cultural artifact.

My latest exchange with the IIG indicates that they do not know at this time if the test will be web cast. I've also suggested releasing the protocol at some time before the test but no decision has been made to date.

One week. At the very minimum, VFF is correct about that.

Here's hoping the webcast is a viable option.
Yes, just one week. Hard to believe the negociations held over so long a period are finally approaching that point, isn't it.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

I understand what a false memory is, but when I detected that the kidney was missing it is not a false memory! The experience was so compelling that I remember it clearly! Your comparison to remembering sequence of events in one Christmas out of many does not fit with this. A better analogy is that when people experience a trauma, or something very shocking or unexpected, they will remember what they were wearing that day and all sorts of other details from that day. The experience becomes etched in their memory better than others, and this is one of such experiences. It really happened, sorry guys.

Traumatic memories can be false too. I have an experience from my own life. When I was 6, a classmate called Victoria was killed when a truck ran over her bike. I remember being in school the morning after and seeing her empty seat at my table, and the teacher, Mrs Poole, making us stand in silence for a while and talking to us in a soft and comforting voice.

Thing is, my sister, who is a year younger than me and so was in a different class, is equally adamant that Victoria was in her class, not mine. She has memories of her class teacher, Mrs Davis, breaking the news to them and of Victoria's empty seat in her classroom.

One of us - or both, I suppose - must be wrong. But we both have very clear and compelling memories and without checking in some way, we don't know who's right.

Conspiracy theories often feed in part on inconsistencies in witness statements of traumatic events, in part because witnesses develop false memories of those events. This is well attested.

 

[volatile]

1. I experience ghosts, but I do not claim that they are real. I do claim, however, that many cases have been very accurate. But it is not a paranormal claim. Just an experience. Just like I experience synesthesia. I see that hydrogen is always red, and nitrogen is green, but I do not claim that they actually have those colors. .

THIS IS A PARANORMAL CLAIM. If you can see invisible gases, let alone distinguish between them, then you are making a paranormal claim.

I am increasingly exasperated with you, and am increasingly incredulous that you are any kind of science student at all.

While I acknowledge what a false memory is, I know for a fact that my recollection of detecting that the left kidney was missing is not one.

Then you most manifestly do not know what a false memory is, because if you'd have read any of the links I gave you, you'd have understood that it is impossible to make statements like this one. You are inordinately frustrating to have a conversation with, because you make claims to scepticism and science while making the most fundamentally anti-scientific and anti-sceptical statements it is possible to make. "I KNOW! It IS!" is the opposite of a sceptical statement.

If you already "really, really" know you can see kidneys and cannot be dissuaded of this under any circumstances and with no amount of contradictory evidence, exactly what is this test going to "falsify"? A belief that can never be disproven is the very opposite of one that can be falsified.

And if you can "always" tell different invisible gases apart just by looking at them, why are we bothering with the very problematic kidney test?

 

[desertgal]

Never mind.

 

[skeen]

Never mind.

I think this sums up everything quite nicely!!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I experience synesthesia. I see that hydrogen is always red, and nitrogen is green, but I do not claim that they actually have those colors.

THIS IS A PARANORMAL CLAIM. If you can see invisible gases, let alone distinguish between them, then you are making a paranormal claim.

I think this is just a misunderstanding. Synesthesia would typically be something like an association between names and colours. VFF almost certainly doesn't mean she can see hydrogen gas, rather that the word hydrogen somehow provokes a sensation of redness.

 

[pakeha]

Would you be willing to bet on that, Jack by the hedge?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Would you be willing to bet on that, Jack by the hedge?

Not in a thread like this.

Edit to add: It would be a remarkably easy claim to verify, though.

 

[Hokulele]

I think this is just a misunderstanding. Synesthesia would typically be something like an association between names and colours. VFF almost certainly doesn't mean she can see hydrogen gas, rather that the word hydrogen somehow provokes a sensation of redness.

It isn't the word, she actually thinks there is some vibrational energy thingy that allows her to sense which chemical is which.

Except under controlled conditions...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4179568#post4179568

 

[volatile]

I think this is just a misunderstanding. Synesthesia would typically be something like an association between names and colours. VFF almost certainly doesn't mean she can see hydrogen gas, rather that the word hydrogen somehow provokes a sensation of redness.

You're new here, aren't you?

She really does believe she can see gas molecules as different colours (and inside metal gas tanks, no less), and she really does believe that this is "not a paranormal claim", but a manifestation of synaesthesia.

So yeah, it's a misunderstanding. But it's a very deep and very profound one. If you have a day or two, read VFF's posts (the thread Hok linked to is where it all starts!), and this will all become very clear.

 

[pakeha]

Not in a thread like this.

A wise choice.

Less than a week to go till the IIG demonstration.
When do we start the count-down?

Added- wrong again, pakeha. Almost precisely a week.

 

[Kariboo]

I understand what a false memory is, but when I detected that the kidney was missing it is not a false memory! The experience was so compelling that I remember it clearly! Your comparison to remembering sequence of events in one Christmas out of many does not fit with this. A better analogy is that when people experience a trauma, or something very shocking or unexpected, they will remember what they were wearing that day and all sorts of other details from that day. The experience becomes etched in their memory better than others, and this is one of such experiences. It really happened, sorry guys.

That is not how memory works. People are actually pretty bad at remembering those things around a trauma. That is for instance why witness testimony is so unreliable. People who think they remember the traumatic events are however extremely attached to the memory and get quite upset when it turns out they are wrong. There is an emotional investment to the memory, exactly because people believe they can;t be wrong.

Why do you refuse to read up on memory?

 

[desertgal]

Edit to add: It would be a remarkably easy claim to verify, though.

Which is precisely why VfF will never test it.