The VFF Test is On!

I think I can say without POing the IIG that the protocol has absolutely nothing to do with Anita's migraine claim(s). I agree that it is a bit unfortunate that she attempted to explore two unrelated claims on the same trip, but one should not affect the other. Finally, as far as I understand it, the migraine stuff is off the table so is a moot point. Is that right, LostAngeles?
 
SezMe said:
I did not intend to criticize you, volatile and I agree with this post. But have any of the JREF protocols included a condition that the claimant will renounce their claiimed ability if they fail the test? I'd guess not.

We cannot demand - or even influence - how Anita interprets the results of this test. All we can do is make our own judgments and deal with her accordingly.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. We cannot. But it was Anita who asked to be tested, and since it's pretty clear that the test will not have any effect on her whatsoever, it is still moot from that perspective IMHO.

SezMe said:
This part I disagree with. Assuming the implemented protocol is reasonable, if not fireproof, and Anita fails, I think the test will have significance...to rationalists. But, as noted above, we cannot let how Anita chooses to interpret the result and her subsequent claims deter us from pursuing a test that we think provides useful data.
Click to expand...

Not quite... Rationalists would be influenced if she succeeded, as they most probably think she's going to fail anyway ;)
 
I am amazed but pleased to see that VfF is submitting to some form of testing. I am unsurprised, but disappointed, to see that she does not understand that the failure of the test does--to a reasonable person--raise the likelihood that her prior 'perception' may not have happened as she remembers it.

It seems that she does not grasp the salient point of a 'false memory', which is that it is false. That is, while it is a memory experienced like any other memory, comparison with the factual events of the time/place remembered shows it to be untrue. A false memory is not a lie; it is not a willful restatement of the remembered event in a way different than as it appears in memory. It is a memory that does not correlate with reality.

It's important to understand that, in this sense, we all have lots of 'false memories'. When you and your sibling get talking about family holidays from your childhood, odds are good that you disagree on things like whether finding the bicycle horn came before or after decorating the dog with stick-on bows. As it happens, that aspect of the event is not of any real importance in the case of holiday memories, which are much more about the warm feelings they bring you than about the factual details of any given Christmas morning. Still, if you remember "dog, then bike horn" and she remembers the bike horn being first, one of you is remembering something differently than how it actually happened.

Anita: I believe that you remember not seeing the kidney. What is meant by the discussion of 'false memories' is that that memory may not have accurately reflect what actually occurred. You are not being accused of lying about it.

I believed I could 'dowse' for objects when I was in college. I know I didn't consciously make my hand move to move the pendulum! I also know, however, that when the person who hid the target object was not in the room when I searched, I could not find it. From this, I conclude that although I didn't 'make' the pendulum move, a phenomenon called ideomotor effect was involved. That is, my memory of the dowsing sessions were not a good analog of reality. They are real memories, and I am recalling them honestly. But they are not factual records of the process that occurred.

Keeping an eye from the far north, MK
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
As things stand, and without an understaning on VFF's part to relate the IIG test to her previous experience, all this test is evaluating, and all it's going to falsify in her conception, is her ability to see kidneys on the specific day in question.

Note the use of the word "again" I picked up on in a previous post. It's clear that Anita does not feel that this is a test of her ability in general, and that no matter what happens with IIG, she will still contend and still assert and still believe that she has magical x-ray vision. In other words, she does not see this test as anything other than a show, despite her cargo-cult type use of words like "falsify".

If she is not approaching the test with the understanding that its results reflect on her previous experiences as well as the ones that occur specifically during the test, the whole charade is rather pointless. It's just an exercise in ego-stroking rather than any kind of sceptical enquiry at all.
Click to expand...
I am so very sorry but my claim that I detected the missing kidney is not a false memory. Things aren't as simple as that.

skeen said:
Anita, when you fail, will you consider seeing a psychiatrist?
Click to expand...
No. Because my perceptions do not interfere with my life nor are they an inconvenience to myself or to others, albeit an annoyance to you, but you bring yourselves here.

GeeMack said:
In particular I believe that volatile's research regarding false memories and his requests that Anita address that issue are pertinent here and shouldn't be ignored. A person is claiming to have magical x-ray vision, and just like with someone who claims to see a UFO or a ghost, a skeptical inquiry will necessarily include consideration for the cause of the claim, whether it be Venus misinterpreted as an alien craft or something in the claimant's mind that makes them believe their claim is true. It's reasonable to ask how this particular claimant would address all the possibilities for the cause of her claim, especially the most likely causes.
Click to expand...
True, except that in my case it isn't a false memory. Oh, how funny this is. Because it wasn't a false memory!

pakeha said:
The IIG demonstration will bring in a great deal of publicity and there will always be fans of someone perceived to have 'powers', even when debunked. Searching through the later careers of 'psychics' even when thoroughly shown up by Randi himself will give you an idea of what I mean.
We've been assured VFF's att. treatments are in no way related to the IIG, which is positive, as I think any connection between VFF's att. treatments and the IIG could compromise the demonstration's credibility.
Click to expand...
I have no intention of working with anything paranormal. I am a devoted science student and headed toward a scientific career. My paranormal claim that is under investigation is based on an experience, not on a choice. I have already turned down every single woo-supporter who has contacted me, and carefully explained to them that my claims are not verified, and that I maintain a skeptical position toward my claims.

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.

pakeha said:
added: The 21st is around the corner now. Will there be streaming?
Click to expand...
I do not myself know whether the demonstration will be presented live.

It's funny how I say things as they are, and yet you all only see what you expect to see, because I am a paranormal claimant. Aren't Skeptics supposed to see the truth? And what kind of psychological process can describe how that happens?
 
pakeha said:
However, the 'magically minded' don't tend to make that sort of fine distinction, as you know. Since it's pretty clear an att. treatment isn't going to verify or falsify anything at all, why bring it up here, except for publicity?
Click to expand...
If I were to attempt a migraine healing with a Skeptic as part of an investigation of the claim made by the man who received an att. treatment from me, and it fails to coincide with any improvement in the Skeptic's migraine condition, the migraine healing claim would of course be falsified since it failed to have any effect. I'm actually trying to falsify the claim. It's as simple as that.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
True, except that in my case it isn't a false memory. Oh, how funny this is. Because it wasn't a false memory!
Click to expand...


I'm afraid we're going to need a little more than your word to go on. You're a proven liar, so how about you back up that claim with evidence. Maybe an assessment by a qualified mental health professional is in order. Please let us know what he/she says about the possibility of you experiencing false memories, will you?
 
Miss_Kitt said:
I am unsurprised, but disappointed, to see that she does not understand that the failure of the test does--to a reasonable person--raise the likelihood that her prior 'perception' may not have happened as she remembers it. (...)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
OK, let's try it like this:

VFF, do you understand that, in general, the strength of the feeling of accuracy of a memory may not be related to whether it is accurate or not?
 
GeeMack said:
I'm afraid we're going to need a little more than your word to go on. You're a proven liar, so how about you back up that claim with evidence. Maybe an assessment by a qualified mental health professional is in order. Please let us know what he/she says about the possibility of you experiencing false memories, will you?
Click to expand...
Why don't you start by giving me an example of where I have lied, GeeMack? Or is this a false memory of yours?

http://www.skepdic.com/memory.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...all-tales.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosy_retrospection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_bias
http://cogprints.org/597/0/199802007.html

And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception
 
Paul2 said:
OK, let's try it like this:

VFF, do you understand that, in general, the strength of the feeling of accuracy of a memory may not be related to whether it is accurate or not?
Click to expand...
I know I know... but I detected the left kidney being missing! It is not a false memory! It isn't!
 
Well, this was quite a post from VFF.
VisionFromFeeling said:
No. Because my perceptions do not interfere with my life nor are they an inconvenience to myself or to others, albeit an annoyance to you, but you bring yourselves here.
Click to expand...
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?


I have no intention of working with anything paranormal. I am a devoted science student and headed toward a scientific career. My paranormal claim that is under investigation is based on an experience, not on a choice. I have already turned down every single woo-supporter who has contacted me, and carefully explained to them that my claims are not verified, and that I maintain a skeptical position toward my claims.
Click to expand...
My bolding.
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?


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.
Click to expand...
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.

It's funny how I say things as they are, and yet you all only see what you expect to see, because I am a paranormal claimant. Aren't Skeptics supposed to see the truth? And what kind of psychological process can describe how that happens?
Click to expand...

VFF claims to say things as they are, does this include believing one is a 'walk-in' from Arcturus? 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.
However, the 21st is near.
All the best to the testers at IIG and many thanks for the hard work they've put into this demonstration!
Click to expand...
 
SezMe said:
I think I can say without POing the IIG that the protocol has absolutely nothing to do with Anita's migraine claim(s). I agree that it is a bit unfortunate that she attempted to explore two unrelated claims on the same trip, but one should not affect the other. Finally, as far as I understand it, the migraine stuff is off the table so is a moot point. Is that right, LostAngeles?
Click to expand...

Yes, it absolutely is.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
I know I know... but I detected the left kidney being missing! It is not a false memory! It isn't!
Click to expand...

Well if you are really sure I guess it must have happened. It probably means we should rethink many other discarded ideas held by people who were really sure about what they perceived. Alien abductees dowsers, N-Rays, Canals on Mars ...
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
If I were to attempt a migraine healing with a Skeptic as part of an investigation of the claim made by the man who received an att. treatment from me, and it fails to coincide with any improvement in the Skeptic's migraine condition, the migraine healing claim would of course be falsified since it failed to have any effect. I'm actually trying to falsify the claim. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Of course not, VFF.
It's clear VFF refuses to even to do enough basic investigation of migraine episodes to understand why this is utter nonsense.


However, SezMe and LostAngeles have posted here that VFF's proposed 'piggybacking' is no longer going to happen.
It will be intriguing to see just how the IIG contrived a protocol for the event. I'm looking forward to seeing how the conditions were met on the 21st.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom