• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vision From Feeling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yousee, it's a mindset I can't understand. If I thought I had an ability like this, I would be constantly testing myself, just to double check it really worked, and finding ways to rule out other explanations. I certainly wouldn't wait until someone else hinted at it to think of that cereal test. It would be the first thing I would think of if I had the experience you just described. I would want to make really sure I wasn't deluding myself.

I find it admirable that you are willing to put yourself up for scientific testing, but find it amazing that you haven't done systematic blinded tests before, just to satisfy your own curiosity.
 
Professor Yaffle:

Alright. I've had this ability, what ever it may be, for several years now and it is continuously growing stronger with experience little by little. I've always taken it for granted and for my personal use and experience with it I do not need any kind of confirmation of its authenticity. Whether a scientific test of it shows that it is ESP, or shows that it is something else such as synesthesia would not matter to me or change much of anything. The ability will be the same, and the observations the same.

It is only recently that I have become interested in sharing this with other people since others might find it interesting as well. However as much as I would love to meet with academic and other persons to arrange for various types of tests, it is not always an easy thing to do to admit to having a perceived ability such as this. Just a few minutes ago I wrote to a medical doctor at a university who had conducted a similar study of psychic medical diagnose asking him whether he would be interested in testing my ability with me. So what I am saying is that it is only recently that I have begun to want to test my ability to find out what it really is.

Expecting me to want to test it after each observation over the years is like expecting you to go have your eyes checked every time you see something. I take my ability for granted myself, and only now that I want to share this with others do I want to test it, mostly on behalf of others and to show others what this really is.

And it was me who suggested the cereal test thank you very much.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
And it was me who suggested the cereal test thank you very much.
Click to expand...


But why didn't you suggest it to yourself when it happened?

I have had strange things happen to my vision, and the first thing I did was try to devise a self-test to see if a) it was consistent, b) it was just me.

She will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is what Professor Yaffle is referring to by "mindset".
 
Last edited:
Systematic blinded tests on my ability will be done over this upcoming weekend. The test protocol used, the information to be found, as well as the results obtained will be posted here as soon as they become available.
 
Hokulele said:
But why didn't you suggest it to yourself when it happened?

I have had strange things happen to my vision, and the first thing I did was try to devise a self-test to see if a) it was consistent, b) it was just me.

She will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is what Professor Yaffle is referring to by "mindset".
Click to expand...

No need for a correction.

It just seems to me that having made the connection that x (visual experience) seemed to correspond to lactobacilli presence, the first thing I would do would be to do a little test and check whether I was right. OK, if I had had this for years I might not have done so on this occasion, but at the beginning, I would have been doing it all the time, and getting very excited if it seemed to be consistent.

I'm not really directing this as a criticism of you, its just a mindset that is totally alien to me.
 
Hokulele:
Hokulele said:
I have had strange things happen to my vision, and the first thing I did was try to devise a self-test to see if a) it was consistent, b) it was just me.
Click to expand...

The things that I perceive with my ability are not strange to me. They are an integrated part of how I perceive the world, and I find it more strange that others can not perceive these things. To me, whether I turn out to be able to successfully detect this information under test-settings, and in repeated trials, will not change the fact that I will continue perceiving the information in individual cases as before. I have not had personal reason to want to test the ability on my behalf until now that I have gotten a scientific interest in finding out what it is, and now that I want to share this with others. The test is mostly on behalf of others.

Professor Yaffle:
The ability developed gradually and most of it began when I was still very young and not thinking about scientific tests. To me I've always taken the information for granted as simply "something I see" and not had to try to understand it as "real" or "not real" based on how others perceive and relate to the world.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
<snip>

To me, whether I turn out to be able to successfully detect this information under test-settings, and in repeated trials, will not change the fact that I will continue perceiving the information in individual cases as before. I have not had personal reason to want to test the ability on my behalf until now that I have gotten a scientific interest in finding out what it is, and now that I want to share this with others. The test is mostly on behalf of others.

<snip>
Click to expand...


No offense intended, but to many critical thinkers, that is a red flag.

Is there anything that would convince you that you are misinterpreting what you think you see?
 
Just to back up Hok, let me phrase it another way:

Scientific thinking includes the acceptance that you might be wrong about your assumptions. What would it take to falsify your hypothesis that you have paranormal perception abilities?

Edited to add: note that I am not saying that admitting that something can be falsified means that it can't be true. Many people who come here with hypotheses about their (or others') paranormal abilities are highly threatened by even the suggestion that their hypotheses could be false. What they're forgetting is that if their hypotheses are true, then the things that could falsify them - which should always be itentified - would simply not happen.

Example: My hypothesis: I am able to move a key on a string in a jar attached to the lid of the jar by telekenesis without touching the jar. My fingers must be lightly resting on the surface on which the jars are set so that I have access to the vibrational essence of the keys.
My demonstration: I will set up two identical jars and put them next to each other. An observer will roll a die. On an even number, I'll move the key in the left-hand jar. On an odd number, the key in the right-hand jar. The key in the un-chosen jar will be unaffected.
If I am able to do this, the demonstration is a success. If I am not, the demonstration is a failure.

If I fail, I need to look for other reasons for why I wasn't able to suceed. For example, was I inadvertedly rocking the table because I was touching it? If my abilities only work when I am touching the table, I must be open to the idea that my contact with the table is what's moving the keys. Ways to test further: put the jars on an unyielding (concrete) floor and touch the floor. Does it work? No? The likelihood that I was mistaking inadvertent movement for telekenetic ability has now increased.

However, if I can actually do it, then I did it. Yay me!

This scenario was taken from an actual recent application for the Million Dollar Challenge.

My apologies if you are thoroughly familiar with the need for being open to the idea that an hypothesis is false. But there may be other readers who do not quite grok this yet, and with the absolutely important idea that one should not continue to cling to a (scientific) idea just because one likes it -- an idea should be supported by (testable, observable) evidence.
 
Last edited:
Ladies and Gents, I am putting a $50 bar-tab at my next TAM appearance on VFF conveniently "not being able to find the time" to do any real testing unless she has the ability to 'read' human subjects. Having been a "sensitive" in my younger days, I know that feeling of being sure something REAL is going on--and it is! -- it just isn't what you think it is. I read even subtle non-verbals really well, but can't articulate what the 'signals' are, just what the net emotion is.

VFF, I hope you are able and willing to be open to the possibility that what you are doing is something quite different from what you think it is.

Also, just for your information, there are professional chemists, biologists, physicians, physicists, and magicians on this board. So don't be surprised if you get called on some technical inaccuracies that other people might miss.

For instance, you at one point indicated you 'detected' through your 'vibrational algebra' that calcium carbonate might be effective in treating Heliobacter. You claim to have some medical interest and background; given that H. pylori is commonly associated with stomach ulcer and ulcer symptoms are commonly eased by taking an antacid, it would not require any special ability to associate those two.

However, the use of antacids is to diminish the presence of stomach acid, which causes the burning and pain sensations--NOT to reduce the H. pylori population. In fact, H. pylori prefers a lower-acid environment, and can excrete a substance that helps lower the acidity of the surrounding area of the stomach. There is even some evidence to suggest that the lower frequency of benign H. Pylori populations in modern Americans may be related to the upsurge in gastric reflux issues. (My source here is a fascinating article in the medical news section of the Economist earlier this year.)

Our brains can store and retrieve information well below the level of your conscious knowledge. Be open to the possibility that a lot of your 'successes' are nothing more than fooling yourself. One doesn't have to be committing fraud or gross self-deception to in fact be deceived as to what is going on.

Best wishes, I look forward to following your progress, MK
 
Last edited:
Yeah. . . it's amazing that someone has what would truly be an extraordinary ability, but just can't find the time to do a 5 minute test.

If I honestly thought I had such an ability, I don't think I could possibly eat or sleep until I have tested and verified the ability.

If your claim is true, it would revolutionize at least a couple of fields of science. It would raise a great many new questions and challenges to the status quo of fairly universally accepted knowledge.

What else is taking up your time? What else could be more important?

VFF admits that such a test would only be for the benefit of other people, which means his belief is dogmatic. That is, he believes in his ability either regardless of or perhaps in spite of evidence to support such a belief.
 
Have you written down your hits and misses? How many confirmed hits have you had compared to how many times you were unable to confirm? While I can't suggest asking strangers what illnesses they have, I do suggest keeping a notebook on you and recording your hits and misses.
And I wasn't saying you were observing actual medical conditions. Rather, you are observing certain things and attributing them to medical conditions. If you're sometimes right, that's coincidence.
 
Another super simple test.

She claims to be able to see through tissues. We can conclude that she can see though dead tissue, since she claims to be able to see brain activity, which is largely shielded with dead hair.

So, leather purse. She tells you what is in it.

So simple.
 
Even simpler test.

Since she claims to be able to detect something "wrong" in a person, have her select some people out of a fair sized sample who she believes meet that criteria.

For the control process, have then behind a screen, and see if she can still detect the "wrong" thing through the screen.

For the test, same process, but she will not know if the person is there or not, by toss of a coin.

That is, a simple detection of presence test using her own detection criteria.
 
I'm reminded of that young Russian woman who claimed an ability similar to VFF's. When tested her guesses were no better than chance. There was a documentary about her on one of the cable channels.


M.
 
Moochie said:
I'm reminded of that young Russian woman who claimed an ability similar to VFF's. When tested her guesses were no better than chance. There was a documentary about her on one of the cable channels.


M.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about this one

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html

She did in fact perform better than chance. Just not enough better to confirm a paranormal ability.
 
Ocelot said:
If you're talking about this one

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html

She did in fact perform better than chance. Just not enough better to confirm a paranormal ability.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's the one. Fascinating subject, although the results are questionable, to say the least. It would be interesting to further test her "ability," since, as you say, there was nothing there to confirm a paranormal ability in the testing that was done.


M.
 
Hokulele:
I don't see the red flag. Whether a test shows that I appear to have ESP, or shows that it is something else like synesthesia, doesn't really change anything in my world. I will continue to perceive the very same information. And wanting to test my ability on behalf of others should definitely not be a red flag, rather I would encourage it.

I think the issue arises from the fact that the way I feel about my ability is not consistent with how most people would expect to react if they suddenly discovered the same ability in them. To me this is everyday and normal. I don't quite appreciate being told that my behavior and actions regarding how I feel about my ability, or what I do about the ability are not valid. It is as if a bunch of blind people approached you and criticized you for not being all excited about being able to see and for not testing it immediately and constantly. The things I perceive are as normal as your vision probably is to you.

I am having the tests now, calm down everybody. Don't jump on me for not having done them sooner. They are on the way and we will all be happy with the results, what ever they may be.

What would convince me that I am misinterpreting what I observe is if when checked against facts I would find out that my observation are consistently incorrect. I am quite open to finding out that this is not ESP at all, and I think that a test might be able to let us find out.

Jackalgirl:
To falsify the hypothesis that this would be ESP I would have to make observations that I am fully convinced of but that turn out to be not consistent with facts. I am not worried about either outcome of the test, like I've said, I will continue to experience the same ability whether it is ESP or synesthesia. I have not been using my observations in any ways that could have consequences if my observations were incorrect. I only make comments on the health of people I know very well, and I treat the information I obtain with the ability responsibly. I am glad to be open to either outcome of the test so that I won't be disappointed if I fail the test, and that is a relief.

I am glad to have science-minded people here, thank you. I can't wait to post the preliminary test protocol and discuss it with you all.

Miss Kitt:
I am going to test simpler tests on chemical identification this weekend. Chemical identification is only an aspect of the ability as a whole, and the ability makes observations most frequently in human subjects which is why I still insist on having the official test on that.

Actually, I don't have a final opinion on what the source of my observations might be. Nowhere have I claimed to have ESP, I am saying that I want to test to find out. I am under the impression that I detect vibrational information from a deeper level which then translates into the corresponding structure and other information, but I have not allowed myself to decide if this is what it is. I am open-minded. That way I can't end up disappointed.

I am very happy to have professional scientists and magicians on this forum, and please do detect any technical inaccuracies or issues regarding this. That is what I am here for.

I reached the conclusions of Calcium Carbonate and Helicobacter all on my own without prior knowledge of the science behind it. It was only afterwards that I checked my assumption and found it to be fairly consistent and worthy of testing. Obviously this is not proof of anything, I could be lying even though I am not, I was simply wanting to explain what leads me to being personally compelled to test the ability. Thank you for the background information, I would still want to test this in a lab if this specific procedure has not been tested.

Yet why aren't we discussing how I knew about the cysts and the Lactobacillus and the many other good observations that I've made? I don't see how to explain away those.

JoeTheJuggler:
It is only recently that I decided to test my ability. Well, to me this ability is something normal and it doesn't excite me as much as it would probably excite someone who suddenly discovered it.

The thing taking up my time and that is more important than this is college. I am doing a B.S. Chemistry and B.S. Physics both in a total of five years, plus research.

VFF is a she.

I believe that I make these observations regardless of whether I have a test or whether I pass a test. The observations will continue to come in. I make no assumptions about having an ability or having synesthesia, though. I do not need evidence that I am observing these things, just like you don't look for a scientific test to find evidence that you can see with your eyes or that you can hear. This is a normal aspect of my perception.

JWideman:
I haven't been recording my hits and misses, yet I seriously can not recall a single time when I would have been incorrect. I almost expect mistakes sometimes, especially when what I observe contradicts with my expectations otherwise or surprises me, yet there have been no mistakes yet.

I have had many confirmed hits. I would estimate it as at least a hundred, but I couldn't possibly recall to tell you how many. I can not recall a single miss. I wouldn't take it personally if I made mistakes in my observations, it's just that there haven't been any.

It is a good idea to start keeping notes on my observations. In fact, I will begin recording these on my webpage, along with whether they were shown to be accurate or inaccurate in the cases where I was able to check them.

How am I observing certain things and attributing them to medical conditions, that aren't medical conditions? I have made many observations that are clearly defined as medical information.

I'm not just sometimes right. I am always right. And it can't be based on coincidence. I am picking up the information from somewhere, but the question is how, and from where, and is this a paranormal thing or perfectly ordinary?

roger:
Be careful with the assumptions and conclusions you make. You don't know whether living versus dead tissue would be perfectly equivalent to my ability. I can see through layers of tissue, and even through hair and clothing, yet the information I read that is behind those layers is living tissue. I have never experienced being able to read into a leather purse.

Zep:
My ability grows from everyday use and experience of it. Most always when I read people there is never a screen between us. I might be able to develop the ability to include screens, but I already have heaps of experience and capability without screens and feel like I would have to start all over. It seems that I need to see the person at least partially in order to reach and download their vibrational information.
 
VFF, be careful that you don't rationalize away the intent to perform tests by convincing yourself that no test can possibly be like the "real thing."

~~ Paul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom