The VFF Test is On!

[Skeptical Greg]

Do look out for another test of kidney detection up ahead, but do not worry, I will not bother the IIG, the JREF, or the local FACT Skeptics with this. There are plenty of one-kidney subjects in the world, and something less formal, and with an actually even stricter testing protocol, can be arranged. I do not expect it to pass me as a psychic, or to entitle me to any cash prize, I only want to experience more cases and more data.

Of what possible use can this be to anyone ?

Are you planning on doing the talk show circuit and picking out people in the audience with 1 kidney ?

 

[GeeMack]

Of what possible use can this be to anyone ?

Are you planning on doing the talk show circuit and picking out people in the audience with 1 kidney ?

​

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

How did I know that trials 1 and 3 would be wrong? And how did I know that trial 2 would be correct? These are not after-the-fact rationalization, false memories, lies, or delusion. I shared these thoughts with Karen, James Underdown, and Mark Edwards, each after each of the three trials, and these are three highly credible people and they can confirm this if they choose to.

I will try to arrange for more testing, but the format will be a little bit simpler to set up, however with a stricter test protocol that allows for even less visibility of the subjects.

Anyhow, I think I am done here. If there is another test later on, I will update my conclusions then.

 

[Hokulele]

I am prepared for an explanation of why her failure was really a success, because although she didn't outright say that participant #6 was missing a kidney, she knew they did, but didn't want to bias the results...

...or something.

I have precognition.

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

How did I know that trials 1 and 3 would be wrong? And how did I know that trial 2 would be correct? These are not after-the-fact rationalization, false memories, lies, or delusion. I shared these thoughts with Karen, James Underdown, and Mark Edwards, each after each of the three trials, and these are three highly credible people and they can confirm this if they choose to.

 

[jhunter1163]

I have also promised to dear Jim Newman of the IIG that I won't post as many wall of texts...

<snip>

Followed by 1,500 words or so.

 

[Marcus]

Thanks for the explanation, Anita. I am disappointed that you did not follow through on your promise to admit that your claim is falsified if you failed the test though.

There is one confusing part . If you really mean the sentence "I do not expect there to be any paranormal explanation" that is the same as saying that your claim is falsified, since it is a paranormal claim. If it is cold reading(and kudos to you for recognizing that cold reading could be involved) there are no paranormal aspects.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Similarly, I also knew that trial 2 would be correct, and that trial 3 would be incorrect, and shared that with IIG members.

You never said that on mic. If you said it off mic, can you tell us exactly who you told?

At any rate, your ability to "know" when you'd be right and wrong is irrelevant and contradictory to your claim. You claimed you are never wrong.

Unfortunately, I knew that trials 1 and 3 were incorrect when I reported those answers, and that trial 2 was correct, and I think that my performance was good enough to warrant more testing.

Why do you think your performance warrants more testing? You claimed you could do this 100% of the time and that you're never wrong. Clearly you cannot.

I do not expect there to be any paranormal explanation. I do think that I might be doing unintentional and automatic cold reading of some external symptoms, that translate on their own through synesthesia into corresponding feeling and images, and that that is nothing paranormal at all.

Leave out the synesthesia nonsense, and I'd say you're right.

Thank you for putting up with my claims, and I am sorry that I truly was not the paranormal claimant you all expected me to be, because that has lead to a lot of the frustration and impatience that we have seen.

You've come close a couple of times, but I still don't see your promised announcement.

 

[Calculon]

<snip>

Followed by 1,500 words or so.

Tee hee

 

[Audible Click]

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.
How did I know that trials 1 and 3 would be wrong? And how did I know that trial 2 would be correct? These are not after-the-fact rationalization, false memories, lies, or delusion. I shared these thoughts with Karen, James Underdown, and Mark Edwards, each after each of the three trials, and these are three highly credible people and they can confirm this if they choose to.

I will try to arrange for more testing, but the format will be a little bit simpler to set up, however with a stricter test protocol that allows for even less visibility of the subjects.

Anyhow, I think I am done here. If there is another test later on, I will update my conclusions then.

And according to everyone else including the IIG you failed the demonstration. Maturity and critical thinking would allow you to admit defeat gracefully but that does not seem to be in the offing.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

So you're a liar. All the times you said this test could falsify your claim were lies.

Your promise that if you failed this test you would announce that you do not have this claimed ability was a lie.

By the way, you did an elaborate system of repeated looking for a kidney and jotting down an X if you saw it and a ? for each time you looked but did not see it. Your final answer was some sort of tallying up or other evaluation of all these Xs and ?s.

Doesn't this process belie your original claim?

In fact, doesn't it show that you are fully aware that your claim isn't true?

Your claim: "When I look at people, I see images in my mind of the inside of their bodies. I see organs, tissues, cells, and chemicals, and even what I call the vibrational level inside the atoms."

 

[volatile]

You never said that on mic. If you said it off mic, can you tell us exactly who you told?

#

To be fair on her, she *did* say (on mic) "I'm really sure about this test" when completing the form for number 2.

 

[bookitty]

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

How did I know that trials 1 and 3 would be wrong? And how did I know that trial 2 would be correct? These are not after-the-fact rationalization, false memories, lies, or delusion. I shared these thoughts with Karen, James Underdown, and Mark Edwards, each after each of the three trials, and these are three highly credible people and they can confirm this if they choose to.

I will try to arrange for more testing, but the format will be a little bit simpler to set up, however with a stricter test protocol that allows for even less visibility of the subjects.

Anyhow, I think I am done here. If there is another test later on, I will update my conclusions then.

Oh dear.

Anita, as an experiment, can you please tell us what other, non-paranormal factors could explain this "knowing." Rest assured, they do not have to be applicable to your specific case.

 

[desertgal]

-----

 

[Ness36]

Vision from Feeling:

Since you failed to see kidneys, and saw some where there weren't any, you must not really be seeing every molecule and atom in the subject from the atomic vibration up.

After this controlled test you do still believe you can see everything from the quantum wavefunction electron distribution up?

In a previous post, I explained the reasons why you could not possibly be detecting molecular or electron vibration.

You were explaining thermal vibration, yet there are many other forms of known vibration associated to atoms and molecules.

1.) I explained molecules bouncing around. This kinetic energy is measured as temperature.

2.) I also explained atomic vibration of electrons on their bonds. This is what allows atoms to absorb and emit electromagnetic waves.

These are not just thermal vibrations; they are related to the energy in the system. What are these other forms of vibration then? If you don’t sense molecules bouncing around, or electrons vibrating on their bonds, what vibration are you sensing?

And actually, if someone were able to perceive the electron distribution and nuclei of atoms, and could distinguish apart the different chemical elements, one could piece those together into molecules, larger structures, and even up to tissues and organs.

Are you telling me you can see a kidney from the ground up? You can see each billions of electrons, atoms, molecules, that make up a kidney? This is like being able to know the exact location and velocity of every speck of dust in the universe.

Electrons are also constantly moving back and forth between low and higher electron levels, as they gain and lose energy. Are you saying you can tell that at
0.00000000000000001 seconds the hydrogen e- is in the s orbital
0.00000000000000002 seconds the hydrogen e- is in the p orbital
0.00000000000000003 back to the s orbital
0.00000000000000004 back to the p orbital
0.00000000000000005 Hydrogen is now bonded with OH to make water, so now its electron is in the bonding orbital with the O and H.
0.00000000000000006 back to s orbital

And you know this for each of the billion electrons in a kidney?

And how dare you simplify the complexity of electron distribution into the statement, "we all know that electrons are a teeny tiny distance from the nucleus". The exact pattern of electron distribution is very telling, and I am sad that you neglect that

Scientists can study the electron distribution of atoms. But they use equipment that is able to interact with electrons. Forget about what scientists with special equipment can do, and tell me what you can do.

Electrons are a teeny tiny distance from the nucleus. Can you prove to me that you can sense anything different, or that you can sense electrons at all? Without special equipment, we would never even know electrons existed, and we didn’t know for thousands of years.

A scalar field is very special. Knowing a scalar field lets you understand how a quantity is distributed across space, and that is vital for understanding how it will interact with other things.
What kind of scientist are you? You never appreciated math, did you? Gradients are very important. They are even used heavily in Physics, but then, you are not a Physicist.

Scalars and gradients are mathematical concepts. I have taken a advanced linear algebra, and physics and engineering mathematics class that used them a lot. Forget what scalars and gradients can do for solving math problems, and tell me how they explain what you perceive, that cannot be explained some other way. i.e. “I see shapes”

I experience that what is vibrating is the substance that atoms are made of.

What is this “substance that atoms are made of”? How do you know that is what you feel vibrating and not something else?

And therefore, in larger structures composed of this, the atoms, molecules, bacteria, and whole organs have vibrational patterns based on the substance they are made of, that is vibrating.

What are these vibrational patterns? If you sense vibrations, You must know the frequency they are vibrating at? 10Hz, 100000000Hz, 0.0000001 Hz? give me a guess.

If I am in a shaky bridge, I can tell you it is swaying 2 vibrations per minute. Or 0.03 vibration/sec

If I am in an earthquake, I can guess the earth was vibrating at 1 vibration/second

Can you tell me the approximate frequency of the vibrations you are sensing?

You mention x-ray crystallography. Don’t tell me what can be done with specialized equipment, tell me what you can do yourself.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

I just started paging through this thread (actually started around page 3 and only went a few pages) and I have collected these (my bolding):

I am very aware of the test protocol for the IIG Preliminary demonstration, and even though I am the claimant, I am also a science student and I would personally not accept this protocol for a test that could conclude in favor of the claim. The Preliminary is incapable of verifying the claim, however it is still fully capable of falsifying the claim. If I do not have the ability of perceiving internal organs through a person's clothed back, the IIG Preliminary is very likely to show that. There is a chance that I might pass the Preliminary even though I would not have an ability, but that likelihood is still very low. The only consequence would be that such a non-ability would be falsified on a formal test instead, using a stricter protocol.

If I can't pass the Preliminary, there is no hope that I could pass a more elaborately and more strictly designed formal test, and I would be happy to conclude on the claim as falsified if I fail the Preliminary.

It is true that I am quite ready and willing to falsify the claim if I fail the IIG Preliminary demonstration. This Preliminary is based on the very strongest expression of the claim, and this protocol offers the very best chance for that claim to show what if anything it can do, and so if I fail this Preliminary there is no other alternative, no changes to the claim or to the protocol could make it any more likely that I pass. The claim would be falsified. And I'm happy about that. I have faith in the IIG and in the design of the Preliminary. The goal is to reach a reliable conclusion.

Never mind. We'll just see what the Preliminary demonstration concludes.

You are misunderstanding what the IIG Preliminary demonstration is all about! Especially since the design of the Preliminary is less strict than the design of a real formal test would be, the Preliminary gives my claim the very best chance to show what it could do, so you see if I fail the Preliminary there is no other procedure that could be better and so the claim would definitely be falsified and end there. The Preliminary is fully capable of falsifying the claim!

ETA: So, according to you, it's time to end this charade and conclude you have no paranormal power.
BTW, in reviewing this thread I pointed out that the danger of using a crappy protocol is that it basically leaves you the claimant the option of whether or not you consider your claim to be falsified. You disagreed with me saying repeatedly that if you failed the test you would admit your claim has been falsified.

 

[Ness36]

Vision From Feeling:

After this test, where you failed to see kidneys, and saw some where there weren't any, and took a really long time looking at each person, do you still maintain you can see inside a person from the quantum electron distribution up?

See these reasons why this is not possible:

One of my friends who has a Chemical Engineering degree (all the same classes as a chemist + extra engineering classes) and almost done with a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering sent me an email discussing the science behind Vision From Feeling's claims after he read these posts.

He was kind enough to agree to let me post his thoughts. These are off-the-cuff, so please make allowances for that.

Here is his email:

"Some points:

-What kind of chemist one is that has no bearing on the physical truth?

-A ethane molecule is about 0.3 nm across, a protein is 5nm, and eukaryotic cell is 50,00 nm, and kidney is 120,000,000 nm across. If she sees molecules via their wavefunctions (almost nobody in the world can image a wave function by the way), she is processing half a billion or more data points on the kidney scale, or say she knows what a kidney cell looks like, then 150,000.

-To see an electron, you need a particle to carry the information from it to a detector. There is nothing she can make to do this, nor detect it. Alternatively, she could detect the electric field from a single electron, which at a distance of one meter would exert a force of 2.3E-28 N on a detector electron, the gravitational attraction her brain feels from a kidney is 15 orders of magnitude higher than that.

-The spatial resolution required to image a single wave function is about 0.1nm. The wavelength of radiation required to detect with that resolution is say 0.05nm which corresponds to very energetic X-rays, about what they use for teeth xrays. If this is her mechanism, all her DNA would be destroyed by now from walking around in radiation all day.

I am not wasting any more brain power on this. I did all that cursorily, so check it before you post anything she can “catch” you on.

PS: Oh, also, if you could see wavefunctions, let alone diagnose diseases, forget college, prove it and you will make 8 figures working anywhere you choose.

Therein lies the conundrum of the skeptic: your allies already agree with you, and your enemies are beyond the grasp of reason. "

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

To be fair on her, she *did* say (on mic) "I'm really sure about this test" when completing the form for number 2.

Yes, but she is now claiming that she said she knew she would be correct on 2 and wrong on 1 and 3. She claims she said that to the IIG people. That I know of, she didn't say that.

And she said repeatedly that she is never wrong. So why should we put more emphasis on her saying she felt confident about one thing?

At any rate, it's irrelevant to the test of her claim. Her claim was not about whether or not she could say when she would be right and wrong (she claimed she is never wrong). In fact, that particular issue was discussed at length some time ago --and the reason why people generally said she shouldn't be allowed to "pass" when/if she isn't confident, since such a set up would not be consistent with her claim.

 

[GeeMack]

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And according to you, you have a 4.0 grade point average even though you failed a course. Anita, you are a liar.

From a posting at www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com...

I am tremendously pleased with the test protocol. From my perspective it is absolutely perfect, and it contains no elements that I worry could reduce my performance. I have confidence in my single past experience of detecting that a left kidney was missing, and am willing to let this specific claim represent the entirety of the medical perceptions claim. And so if I fail this Preliminary test with the IIG, I will be happy to announce my paranormal claim as falsified.

Now how about you post that announcement. Or do you intend to just keep on lying?

 

[bookitty]

Anita, I am very curious about something. Did you experience any other information from the subjects, any incidental medical facts?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And according to you, you have a 4.0 grade point average even though you failed a course. Anita, you are a liar.

From a posting at www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com...




Now how about you post that announcement. Or do you intend to just keep on lying?

See also post #935 for another collection of her statements saying that if she failed the test she would consider her claim to be falsified once and for all. (And I don't think I got every instance of her saying that either.)