The VFF Test is On!

[Agatha]

Either raw or uncooked, VFF

Pakeha is correcting your English, VfF; raw is a synonym of uncooked in this context, so there is no need to use the two words together, either will do and will convey the same meaning.

I've just returned from this month's meeting with the local FACT Skeptics group.

1) I had asked Dr. Carlson to let me practice perceiving that his left kidney was missing. I did so for about 5 minutes. Although I know the right answer, that he is missing the left kidney and has the right, this was still good for me to reassure to myself that I can claim to be perceiving the kidneys, and to be perceiving one being missing, so that I feel confident enough toward my performance on the actual Preliminary.

You already knew the right answer, so that is hardly a convincing demonstration of your powers.

2) I did a "reading" with a new FACT member. She told me she is missing several organs. I only had the chance to get to her once the meeting had ended, and so did not have much time to do a full head-to-toe reading. Starting from the head and going down, I detected that the right ear would have a significantly reduced hearing, and the left ear have normal hearing. I wrote down my perceptions on paper and did not speak during the "reading", and she was sitting turned around so we had minimal contact. I had to conclude on the reading before I was finished. And she confirmed that it was true that she has reduced hearing in the right ear, in fact she listens only with her left ear.

You spoke with her prior to the reading "she told me she is missing several organs"; it doesn't need skill in cold reading, never mind sooper-dooper human MRI skills, to assess one-sided hearing loss when speaking with someone. Did you fail to detect which if any organs this lady was missing? It appears that you did fail.

3) Another FACT member said that he is seeing a doctor tomorrow and offered for me to try to identify what the problem was. I said that he needs to turn around so that we have minimal communication and clues. I was looking through everything and could not find any illness. He was joking about and asking me whether he has various organs (that we can not live without). In the same manner, he then said something which made it sound as if he was stating that he is missing a kidney. I was surprised, but proceeded to look into his back. So. He is missing a kidney, he just said so. I thought to myself, that this is just like it will be on the test, almost. And I now had to use "all my might" to detect whether it is the left kidney or the right kidney that is missing...

... I felt into his back, and the left kidney showed up first. At first, my logical side that always intervenes and only misleads me, says that well since Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney, maybe it is standard procedure to always remove the left one for some reason, when one is removed, and if there is a choice. But my perception was that the left kidney was there, I was clearly feeling and seeing the organ and feeling all the blood in it. I thought, that this time I can not screw it up. No matter what happens, I have to record my perceptions, and not let logic get in the way. I made the mistake once before, of not writing down the perception of the kidney being missing. So I concluded for myself, that my perception is that the left kidney is definitely present. No doubt...

... So I proceeded to the right side. Usually one kidney shows up before the other, since they are not felt in the exact identical way. So, I thought to myself, since the left one surely was there, the right one is the one that is missing. And because I had felt the left one first, the left one was the one more obviously there. However... I felt the right kidney. This can't be true, I thought. He has a kidney missing! He had said so! I thought to myself, again, that last time when I had done the reading with Dr. Carlson, I had thought that misdiagnosing his number of kidneys would make me not entitled to have a test. And that had been the reason I didn't report the perception then. But this time, I thought, I simply must report my actual perception. This is not a test of my logical skills, it is a test of the perceptions, an independent entity other than logic. Besides, the IIG test was already scheduled, and surely it would not be cancelled if I were wrong...

... I checked again, and I was feeling and seeing the right kidney. So I told him, that although he said that he is missing a kidney, I perceive both kidneys clearly. I was not worried about being wrong. I thought, that this is simply an inquiry and I can not take the results personally, it is what it is. However... he then said that he has both kidneys.

So, even when logically fully believing that the man is missing a kidney, because he said so, my perception depicted both. And in the past case, fully believing logically that Dr. Carlson surely would have both kidneys, I [claim to have] correctly detected that the left one was missing.

This is reassuring me toward the Preliminary, and I can't wait to have the test. Because clearly there is something going on.

So, you knew he was "joking about", then he said "something which made it sound as if he was missing a kidney". Later in your wall o' text you've translated that into a definite statement by this man, which was it? However all your words don't hide that you apparently failed to detect why this man was visiting his doctor, and that taking his statement as a joke gave you a 1749 in 1750 chance of being right. Given that you already knew he was joking around, colour me unimpressed.

 

[desertgal]

(This post is highly relevant to the topic of this thread, being the IIG Preliminary, so I would ask that the Moderators please not move this post elsewhere.)

I've just returned from this month's meeting with the local FACT Skeptics group.

1) I had asked Dr. Carlson to let me practice perceiving that his left kidney was missing. I did so for about 5 minutes. Although I know the right answer, that he is missing the left kidney and has the right, this was still good for me to reassure to myself that I can claim to be perceiving the kidneys, and to be perceiving one being missing, so that I feel confident enough toward my performance on the actual Preliminary.

So, you detected a missing kidney that you already knew wasn't there. Impressive.

2) I did a "reading" with a new FACT member. She told me she is missing several organs. I only had the chance to get to her once the meeting had ended, and so did not have much time to do a full head-to-toe reading. Starting from the head and going down, I detected that the right ear would have a significantly reduced hearing, and the left ear have normal hearing. I wrote down my perceptions on paper and did not speak during the "reading", and she was sitting turned around so we had minimal contact. I had to conclude on the reading before I was finished. And she confirmed that it was true that she has reduced hearing in the right ear, in fact she listens only with her left ear.

So, you detected a hearing aid and/or cold read that someone was hard of hearing. Impressive.
What organs was she missing? Since, you know, hearing isn't an organ. Or maybe you don't know that?

3) Another FACT member said that he is seeing a doctor tomorrow and offered for me to try to identify what the problem was. I said that he needs to turn around so that we have minimal communication and clues. I was looking through everything and could not find any illness. He was joking about and asking me whether he has various organs (that we can not live without). In the same manner, he then said something which made it sound as if he was stating that he is missing a kidney. I was surprised, but proceeded to look into his back. So. He is missing a kidney, he just said so. I thought to myself, that this is just like it will be on the test, almost. And I now had to use "all my might" to detect whether it is the left kidney or the right kidney that is missing... (blah de blah de blah)

So, you detected that some guy was joking around about missing a kidney. Impressive.

This is reassuring me toward the Preliminary, and I can't wait to have the test. Because clearly there is something going on.

Yeah. You're a delusional fraud.

We don't have a scanner...

Well, that's odd. You've said, several times, that you do have a scanner, but you just "haven't had the time" to install it yet. So, which is it? You were lying then or you are lying now?

...and scanning costs a bit of money to do at school and would take a lot of time, since there are nearly 100 pages.

You can spend over $1,000 to go to California, and a significant amount of time yakking away on various websites...but you don't have $20 and an hour to scan 100 pages of data? Right.

I was typing them up, but then one of you Skeptics told me that typed up data is no good, so I stopped doing that.

You had to be told that typed up data is no good? I thought you were a scientist. You don't understand the value of raw data?

Ahem. How about the hard work I have put into this also?

What about it?

 

[skeen]

Wow. Anita is going to fail real, real hard.

 

[Sideroxylon]

It would be interesting to compare Anita’s account of events at the FACT meeting with those of the folks she's mentioned.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

The guy with two kidneys tried to trick you into thinking he had one kidney not two and u picked up (cold read) that he was joking yeah well done.

Actually the way he said it made me think that he was serious. I even looked over to my boyfriend and was signaling to him that I'm in trouble. We'll see how I do at the Preliminary, ok. The testing conditions will be more agreeable, as you will see. I will definitely not have met any of the subjects in advance, there will be absolutely no verbal communication between us, no one will say to me that someone does or does not have certain organs and either be joking or be serious. So hang in there, it's only the day after tomorrow and you can see me do this live.

So what was the illness that he said he had to go to the Dr for? Oh yeah u missed that.

He has had a sharp pain in his right side and it is a suspected kidney stone. I did not detect it. Nor do I claim to be able to detect "everything". I just claim to be able to detect, the very specific things that I have experienced detecting in the past. I do not expand it into an all-encompassing claim. I don't mind admitting when I fail to detect something that a person thinks I should detect. I do miss several cases of pain, even current pain, and scar tissue, for instance.

And the lady had several missing organs and u picked up that hearing was reduced in one ear she didnt say reduced she said only uses the other ear for hearing so half a point for that..and missed the rest..

Like I said, I only got to this at the end of the meeting when everyone was leaving. It takes me up to 30 minutes to do a thorough full head-to-toe reading, and I start with the head and work my way downwards. That is why I detected the hearing problem, and I never had time to reach down to the pelvic area, which is where she has organs missing. And I get a full point for my perception of the hearing problem, thank you.

How did the other controls go did they beat u again?

We have to publish the data from the study so that you can see how. I identify two main issues with that study. One being that nearly all of the health information that ended up being involved among the volunteers was such that in many cases does come with external symptoms, and the controls were using their best attempts at cold reading. Another is that most or all of the health information that was involved in the questionnaires was such that can be subjectively described. The study was designed so that not only do you have to match the ailment itself, but also its extent as it was given by the volunteer. I did detect additional things that were not listed on the questionnaire, all of which were correct. We'll just have to look at the data before making more significant conclusions. Anyone want to buy me a scanner?

Yeah theres something going on alright keep trying very impressive stuff

See my very impressive stuff for yourself live this Saturday!

You'll find that as the controls on these sort of tests are tightened your super powers will be reduced to zero...your really not very skeptical at all are you?

I am skeptical because I have this experience that I can't explain or deny and I have submitted it to a paranormal test with a skeptical organization, and have agreed to all of the testing conditions and am willing to falsify the claim if the results reveal inaccuracy. And why are you carelessly throwing out comments just like that? Don't you know that the Preliminary test design was made by me, and like I say, "None of what my claim requires in order to perform, has been taken away. And nothing has been added, that would inhibit it." The conditions at the Preliminary will be most optimal for the performance of my claim.

Be sure to watch this Saturday. We'll see what happens.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You already knew the right answer, so that is hardly a convincing demonstration of your powers.

I know that. All it means is that I was able to confirm with myself that I believe that my claim is working. All it means is that I feel ready for the Preliminary, and I can do my best and I can state that I have done my best, and that means even more that if I fail, the results are conclusive and acceptable.

We always want a paranormal claimant to be comfortable with the testing conditions, and to fully believe that their claims are working, because that is the only way they could ever realize if their claims are false.

You spoke with her prior to the reading "she told me she is missing several organs"; it doesn't need skill in cold reading, never mind sooper-dooper human MRI skills, to assess one-sided hearing loss when speaking with someone.

Well, certainly possible. That is why the Preliminary involves health information that should not be detectable by ordinary senses of perception, or voluntary or involuntary cold reading skills.

Did you fail to detect which if any organs this lady was missing? It appears that you did fail.

Surely. I did not have time to reach down to reading in her lower abdomen area. That's like asking you to read a book, and you obviously start with the first chapter and work your way forward. And if you are not given enough time, surely you could not have a possible clue about what the last chapters say! I start from the head, and work my way downward. That helps me keep track of where I've been and where I'm going next.

So, you knew he was "joking about", then he said "something which made it sound as if he was missing a kidney". Later in your wall o' text you've translated that into a definite statement by this man, which was it?

First he was joking to me and asking me if he has a brain, etc, for various organs that we can not live without. Then he said something that sounded like he is missing a kidney. I thought he meant it, but turns out it was a joke, too. Regardless, I was fully convinced that he is missing a kidney, but I detected both anyway. The point of this story is that I am ready to take the Preliminary. Of course this experience, too, did not take place under adequate test conditions so don't make too much out of it. And don't assume that I am making too much of it, either. Let's just see what happens at the IIG Preliminary.

However all your words don't hide that you apparently failed to detect why this man was visiting his doctor, and that taking his statement as a joke gave you a 1749 in 1750 chance of being right. Given that you already knew he was joking around, colour me unimpressed.

His health problem is pain in his right side and a suspected kidney stone. I did not detect this. Even after he told me that this was the problem and I felt into the kidneys I could not perceive it and told him that I could not detect it. And I honestly thought that he was serious about missing a kidney. Regardless, let's just wait for the Preliminary. It won't have any of these issues.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Wow. Anita is going to fail real, real hard.

Alright. Then that's what it'll be. It is what it is. And we'll see. Either way, I don't mind. I just want a reliable answer and that's what I'll get.

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for civility

You should be able to get some money (and attention!) out of performing in front of psychology students. There is hope after all!

If the perceptions are inaccurate, all they are is an expression of synesthesia. Synesthesia is by definition not a mental illness. The only reason I am investigating, is because I have had accurate perceptions of health information that should not be accessible to ordinary senses of perception.

 

[desertgal]

Actually the way he said it made me think that he was serious.

Yeah. That's why you said:

He was joking about and asking me whether he has various organs (that we can not live without). In the same manner, he then said something which made it sound as if he was stating that he is missing a kidney.

You can't even keep your story straight from one post to the next.

If the perceptions are inaccurate, all they are is an expression of synesthesia.

Then, why did you say this? Just another attempt to appear virtuous, I see.

Well, think about it this way. Half of this issue is already true. I do "see" the insides of people's bodies. The question rather is, are those images depicting reality or are they fabricated by my mind?

It isn't synesthesia. It never has been. That's just your fall back lie when "paranormal" is disproven.

The lady FACT member said after we concluded the reading that as I was working with looking into her she could feel a tingling sensation in the part of the body that I was looking into. Of course also I claim that feeling is involved, because I have the experience that I feel the tissues.

Sounds like the folks at the FACT meeting were having some fun at your expense, after listening to your tiresome diatribes month after month after month.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

The lady FACT member said after we concluded the reading that as I was working with looking into her she could feel a tingling sensation in the part of the body that I was looking into. Of course also I claim that feeling is involved, because I have the experience that I feel the tissues.

Seems like I am capable of cacakoka (See here). I hereby challenge reason1 to a staring contest.

What if I came and said something like this?

I did say that it's impossible for the observers to count any misses because it's not self-evident but irrelevant to success in regard to the test because the hits are actually self-evident .

So, stop fussing at me. If I fail the IIG Preliminary, the misses are very self-evident and are highly relevant, but also the hits are self-evident. I don't see why I am under so much attack.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Last goodbye before Preliminary

Well, everyone, this will be my last post before the IIG Preliminary. Wish me all the best, and be sure to watch it live this Saturday at 11:00am Pacific Standard Time at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/vision-from-feeling-demonstration!

 

[Sideroxylon]

I know that. All it means is that I was able to confirm with myself that I believe that my claim is working. All it means is that I feel ready for the Preliminary, and I can do my best and I can state that I have done my best, and that means even more that if I fail, the results are conclusive and acceptable. [snip]

Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that."

 

[desertgal]

What if I came and said something like this?

You have.

So, stop fussing at me. If I fail the IIG Preliminary, the misses are very self-evident and are highly relevant, but also the hits are self-evident. I don't see why I am under so much attack.

As Cuddles already explained:

Because Anita isn't quite the same as most other claimants. Generally you have to wait until after the test is failed before the excuses and accusations start coming out. Anita, on the other hand, has stated flat out that she will not pay any attention to the results of this test. If she fails, she still has magical x-ray vision, so there.

But that's the whole point. She's already given her reaction. A failure on this test does not show that she doesn't have x-ray vision. So there (yes, that's a direct quote of her scientific point of view). It's therefore perfectly reasonable for people to get on their soapboxes right now. In fact, Anita could pass all the tests, win millions of dollars and turn out to actually have magic powers, and we'd still be perfectly justified in criticising her right now, because her stated attitude at the moment is about as unscientific as it is possible to get. Even having her beliefs turn out to be completely true would not change the fact that her approach to testing them is utterly wrong and deserves all the criticism it gets. We don't have to wait until after the test to see that.

Great post, but I guess it is one of those you skipped over in a rush to read your own words.

Well, everyone, this will be my last post before the IIG Preliminary. Wish me all the best, and be sure to watch it live this Saturday at 11:00am Pacific Standard Time at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/vision...-demonstration!

Thank heaven, and no thank you. I think the IIG is to be commended for their hard work in this, and their patience in dealing with you. Personally, though, I can't imagine anything less entertaining or less informative than watching a delusional woman try to scam people for the sake of attention. Since it will only result in "I have one of a kind synesthesia!" instead of "I have a paranormal ability!", it is simply an exercise in futility.

 

[Gmonster2]

"The lady FACT member said after we concluded the reading that as I was working with looking into her she could feel a tingling sensation in the part of the body that I was looking into. Of course also I claim that feeling is involved, because I have the experience that I feel the tissues. "

Of course this claim would be very easy to test ahh ... whatever I give up....

 

[Moochie]

Well, everyone, this will be my last post before the IIG Preliminary. Wish me all the best, and be sure to watch it live this Saturday at 11:00am Pacific Standard Time at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/vision-from-feeling-demonstration!

That'll be 0600 Sunday AEDT for those Aussies interested.


M.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The lady FACT member said after we concluded the reading that as I was working with looking into her she could feel a tingling sensation in the part of the body that I was looking into.

Oh boy ! Now you are transmitting some kind of magical power !

So, stop fussing at me. If I fail the IIG Preliminary, the misses are very self-evident and are highly relevant, but also the hits are self-evident. I don't see why I am under so much attack.

What hits are you referring to ?

I don't mind admitting when I fail to detect something that a person thinks I should detect. I do miss several cases of pain, even current pain, and scar tissue, for instance.

I believe I have the very same powers that you do !

 

[Ness36]

Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that."

That is a very good quote, Sideroxylon! I had not heard that one before.

 

[Sideroxylon]

That is a very good quote, Sideroxylon! I had not heard that one before.

My source was Wikipedia but you can find the idea expressed in this 1974 speech:

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

I like what he says about attention to honesty as a mark of good science over pseudoscience. While reading your earlier post in which you emphasised the importance of honesty this speech came to mind.

 

[Ness36]

My source was Wikipedia but you can find the idea expressed in this 1974 speech:

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

I like what he says about attention to honesty as a mark of good science over pseudoscience. While reading your earlier post in which you emphasised the importance of honesty this speech came to mind.

Thanks for the link, this is an excellent speech. I heard about the story of cargo cults in the south pacific recently, and think it is a very interesting metaphor. This case with Vision from Feeling is an excellent example of using "cargo cult" science. Using the trappings and vocabulary, and even faux-tests for paranormal experiences, but ignoring the core scientific method. Really science is so simple a 5 year old can do it. Ask a question, test it, have someone else do the same test, try to prove yourself wrong.

I also didn't know Richard Feynman was such a p*&p, trying to hit on that girl at the hot springs! LOL.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Are there any first rate new age publications?

 

[fromdownunder]

Guys and guyesses (who said I was sexist) how about we leave this alone until Anita fails the test?

Norm