Vision From Feeling

[VisionFromFeeling]

Nonsense Update

Soapy Sam:
Thanks for stopping by to see if this nonsense is getting anywhere. I am having a study this week or next, read more about it on www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html The procedure for the study and other details will be posted there shortly, so come see it again!

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
Let's keep that thread and I will answer in it when I find the time. Please allow that I prioritate this thread and the upcoming study, and I will post there when time allows.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Sheer and utter nonsense. I made the last post five days ago and asked but one single question. One. Since then you have responded multiple times to people here who have quoted and asked questions from the moderated thread.

It's a simple question: yes or no, though a no might require a bit of elaboration. However, since you have found time to write literally thousands of words since I asked the question, there is but one conclusion:

You're avoiding the question: If you performed at a level no better than chance, would you conclude that your perceptions are the result of something ordinary rather than the extraordinary claim of sensing vibrational information?

The perceptions have appeared to be accurate.

Telling you to be precise is getting old.

For many perceptions you haven't a clue about their accuracy. You tell the people you read not to take your seriously and to regard what you say as nonsense, then ask if you were right. No independent verification has been done.

A proper statement is, "For many of my perceptions I have no clue as to the accuracy one way or another. For some the only gauge of accuracy is to ask the person I'm reading if I'm accurate, but that's only after telling them not to take me seriously. So, really, I can't make any solid claims about my accuracy one way or another."

Proven phenomena, but have they been proven to apply to me?

We've been teaching. You're not learning. Go back and re-read my explanations about eliminating known phenomena.

I do realize that my experiences are not evidence to others, nor have I intended to present them as evidence to others.

Once again, nonsense. On your website you present your observations under a section titled How am I convinced that my ability is real and not just imagination?. There you point to your observations page and list things you claim to see in the body. You say, "I have not been incorrect a single time!" What's that if not evidence?

Seriously. What's the point of the website if not to provide evidence?

Your claim: If true would make you the first person on this planet with those abilities who bothered to go through this ordeal.
Red mine.

Again, nonsense. It's only an ordeal because you refuse to go about it properly. Everybody here has told you that they would have been tested years ago and done it properly.

Hell, just show up at any university, walk up to a physics professor, give him a once-over, then say, "I detect that you are missing a molar on the bottom left of your jaw. You have had a vasectomy where the vas was tied in a loop. You have a sharp pain in your left buttock. And you're color blind."

Then watch what happens.

Failed a test of my main claim of identifying medical information in people by seeing them? Nah. Disappeared before taking a test? I'm still here.

I am wondering if you are being deliberately obtuse, having language difficulties, or just aren't smart.

Suppose I say to a drunk driver, "you are doing the same thing as every other person we've seen get arrested or die in a car crash." It looks like you would say, "Well, I'm not dead or in jail. I'm confused."

If you can't understand the concept of a similar pattern being an indicator of a future conclusion, then it's no wonder you so easily discount cold reading.

chose not to

You chose not to demonstrate a very concise claim. Again.

Give me one example of when I disregarded the use of the scientific method in my investigation of my main claim of medical diagnose from live persons (ie. not photos or video).

Working from your observations page:

1) You did not research the nature of vasectomies before explaining what you saw.

2) You did not research the prevalence of peanut oil before claiming that frying with it was unusual.

3) You did not provide any detail whatsoever about the people you have read.

4) You did not research the location of the small intestine before incorrectly claiming that you spotted a problem with it at a location where it couldn't possibly exist.

Should I go on?

Don't just point out my shortcomings, teach me instead. When did I jump to false conclusions?

It started with holding crystals in your hand and believing you could see a light or glow coming from them without ever actually testing this theory. It's been downhill ever since.

People grounded in reality who experience the unusual do not look to the supernatural for explanations without at least eliminating all the natural causes including being mistaken or self-deceiving.

(I could present a long list of where you skeptics jumped to false conclusions, but let's just leave it at that.)

Actually, you could present a long list of instances where you presented incomplete information in an imprecise way. But unlike you, the skeptics have admitted their mistakes. You haven't.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

skeen:
!!! But when I do respond to every single comment I get criticized for the wall of texts!

It is not the length of the "wall of text" that people complain about. It is the lack of useful and relevant information in any of them and the lack of progress shown in them that people complain about. If the post needs to be long, then it needs to be long. However, don't keep writing long walls of text just to rehash the same points over and over again. If you have answered a question or concern a number of times, just say that the issue was raised and addressed, and link back to the post where it was addressed. The only new answers to previously addressed issues should be to clear up misunderstandings from the previous posts, and then any future links can refer back to the post with the new updated answer.

As for the psychological assessment, this would be a good idea for a number of reasons, the best reason for you would probably be that if you had it done, and got a clean bill of health, then you could put that issue to rest once and for all, and that possible explanation would be taken off the table. Part of scientific exploration is eliminating alternate theories in a scientific manner until all possibilities but the truth have been eliminated. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once stated, through the character of Sherlock Holmes, "Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." If you think that a mental disorder is impossible, then test for it, and eliminate it. If you cannot eliminate it, due to being assessed with some psychological disorder, then that opens up another avenue of research into your perceptions. A good scientist does not reject possible explanations arbitrarily, just because they do not fit their pet theories. Modify the theory to fit the evidence. Do not modify the evidence to fit the theory.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
I have not had such tests at school. I've had experiences, that's all.

"I also used my ability to help me in the chemical identification exercise in a chemistry lab."

Seems like it possibly, but is not so. I am still considering having additional tests, but I have to work out a way to make maybe five trials at a time and then rest a few days in between, and then to add the series of trials together. The headache and nausea comes from forcing myself to make tens of perceptions within a few hours, when normally I only have one every few weeks or so. I regret the inconvenience but that's how it is.

Wow.

Now it's up to needing a few days of rest. First, there was no mention of feeling ill. When called on it, you say you should have told us earlier. Now, when presented with a test protocol to work around your actual claims about how you felt and what you intended to do, you bring up a new obstacle: needing to rest for a few days.

Gee. What else aren't you telling us?

Then how come headache and nausea appear first, and my stamina to perform is reduced after? Hm.

Deliberately obtuse, language problem or stupidity? I asked how *we* could know the answer. You telling us to trust you is not an option, especially when keep adding new details after the fact (nausea, stamina).

 

[Uncayimmy]

This is an improper way of twisting my words by the way. And we've already established that I do not have schizotypal disorder by virtue of the little checklist that was posted earlier.

How can we expect a delusional person to answer accurately and honestly about being delusional? Therefore, we cannot eliminate it as a possibility. On little Wiki checklist doesn't mean squat. If we haven't disproven it, then you can't say it's not possible.

It's the same argument you make about ESP only in this case, mental illness has been scientifically documented in millions of people whereas ESP has yet to have on verified person.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I've updated my main page www.visionfromfeeling.com

This webpage is about my extrasensory perception medical perceptions that allows enable me to know about the describe health condition information of people.

Follow my progress in having my ability perceptions scientifically tested and hopefully verified!

You can follow the discussion about my ability this investigation on the JREF Forum at the following two discussions threads

Progress, thanks to my skeptics here. I have no intention of saying things that aren't so.
It is a language issue, that's all.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Regarding the link that was provided by UncaYimmy about psychosis, http://www.buzzle.com/articles/psychosis-delusions-personality-disorders.html, I've read it carefully and here is my response (if anyone is curious):

You brought this up publicly, so I'm only going along.

Psychotics are fully aware of events and people "out there". They cannot, however separate data and experiences originating in the outside world from information generated by internal mental processes. They confuse the external universe with their inner emotions, cognitions, preconceptions, fears, expectations, and representations.

I most definitely can separate between the unusual perceptions and those that result from ordinary senses. I have no confusion between myself and the external universe. The reason I initiated this paranormal investigation is because I've experienced correlation between the perceptions and with facts, not because of my interpretation of correlation, but by impersonal confirmation. And all that concludes is to have a test.

Wow. How do you know you can? In my case I don't have any beliefs about myself that I have not seen documented scientifically. Nobody has every told me I do. Of course, that could be a disorder where I forget that people tell me I have bizarre beliefs. It's possible, but extremely unlikely because I've never seen it documented. But then again, that, too, could be part of my disorder. So either I'm severely delusional or I'm not at all. If I am, how come I can live a stable life? But maybe I'm really not. Maybe I'm strapped down to a bed like in St. Elsewhere.

You, on the other hand, believe things never proven to be true and have been repeatedly told that you hold bizarre beliefs (ghosts, incarnations, your medical/chemical claims). You acknowledge this as fact. You just choose not to acknowledge what this might mean.

Consequently, both psychotics and the personality disordered have a distorted view of reality and are not rational. No amount of objective evidence can cause them to doubt or reject their hypotheses and convictions. Full-fledged psychosis involves complex and ever more bizarre delusions and the unwillingness to confront and consider contrary data and information (preoccupation with the subjective rather than the objective). Thought becomes utterly disorganized and fantastic.

I am very rational. I just have unusual experiences, but the experiences do not come about by choice, it is not as if I've "rationalized myself into allowing them to occur". I rationally decide to have a scientific test to establish the objective truth behind my interestingly accurate perceptions. I love objective evidence, I am a scientist science student. There is nothing I enjoy more than reading about some concept of physics that defies all everyday experience and to take it as truth simply because it is proven with objective scientific verification and is agreed to by the scientific community, even if I can't visualize it right away. This paragraph didn't apply to me.

I contend you are rejecting objective evidence and are unwilling to confront contradictory data.

• You claimed you could read photos and video, but when met with failure, you dropped it down to just sometimes.
• You claimed you could identify chemicals, but then stopped testing when the results were less than accurate.
• You claimed you could do vibrational algebra, but refuse to demonstrate it.
• You claimed to detect a vasectomy, but when you presented with an opportunity for an objective test, you claimed you could not detect any in your study at the mall.
• You refuse in general to test small and simple things and insist on only testing the most difficult and time-consuming claims.
• You refuse to involve your instructors who are experts in quantum mechanics.

The DSM-IV-TR defines psychosis as "restricted to delusions or prominent hallucinations, with the hallucinations occurring in the absence of insight into their pathological nature".

I experience perceptions, impressions, of tissue, and do not consider the perceptions to be pathological. Most people experience periods of having random strange thoughts that they can not stop or control and I don't even have that.

You said that you cannot control some perceptions because they are so strong. In this case pathological means highly abnormal. Billions of people on the planet, only one Vision From Feeling. Can't get much more abnormal than that unless you had an identical twin.

A delusion is "a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary".

Aha! I am not delusional! So stop it, everyone! There is no belief behind my perceptions, they are images and impressions, that's all, and I do not automatically place belief into them. They are also not firmly sustained, I am open to finding out that they'd not always be accurate. And as a scientist science student I would never find it in me to reject incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence.

Anita, that paragraph describes you perfectly. Your only defense is that there is "no belief" behind your impressions. C'mon, if there was no belief, you wouldn't have created a website and announced your claim on at least three different skeptic websites.

A hallucination is a "sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality of a true perception but that occurs without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ".
Aha! Yet again from a third definition my perceptions are not hallucinations! My perceptions do not come with a compelling sense of reality of a true perception! But they do however occur without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ.

You claim to have seen ghosts and spoken with them. You claim to fear some of them and joke with others.

Delusion is, therefore, a belief, idea, or conviction firmly held despite abundant information to the contrary. The partial or complete loss of reality test is the first indication of a psychotic state or episode. (...) There are many types of delusions:

My belief is to proceed toward a scientific test to find out what the actual accuracy is and what the actual origin of the information is. There has been no information contrary to this belief.

The evidence is that no other person in the history of mankind has scientifically demonstrated what you claim. The "evidence" leading you to this test is regarded by the scientifically minded people here as wholly unworthy of testing for validity. The evidence points to other known phenomena, yet you refuse to let go of the possibility of something never proven.

I. Paranoid
The belief that one is being controlled or persecuted by stealth powers and conspiracies. This is common in the Paranoid, Antisocial, Narcissistic, Borderline, Avoidant, and Dependent Personality Disorders.

Not me.

Agreed.

2. Grandiose-magical
The conviction that one is important, omnipotent, possessed of occult powers, or a historic figure. Narcissists invariably harbor such delusions.
Hm, yes. I feel important because I aspire to make progress within the field of medical technology, meanwhile I think everyone is important in their own way, and this is just what give meaning to my own existence. Omnipotent I am not, I've got shortcomings. Well, experience suggests that I might have some powers, but tests will establish whether I am entitled to take it as a conviction.

It is grandiose to believe that you have a power never, ever seen before in recorded history.

Hallucinations are false perceptions based on false sensa (sensory input) not triggered by any external event or entity. The patient is usually not psychotic - he is aware that he what he sees, smells, feels, or hears is not there. Still, some psychotic states are accompanied by hallucinations.

The perceptions are triggered by external events or entities. The perceptions are what I automatically associate to when exposed to external things.

That does not apply to your ghost stories or claims of being an incarnation of a distant star.

There are a few classes of hallucinations:
Auditory - The false perception of voices and sounds (such as buzzing, humming, radio transmissions, whispering, motor noises, and so on).

Not me.

You claim to talk with ghosts and hear them moving around.

Gustatory - The false perception of tastes

I can't conclude whether they are false. For instance when I look at a person's neck and can taste what they are eating and it is in fact the taste of what they are eating. I don't know about this one.

You claim to taste what others taste without that substance touching your tongue, but don't consider that a false perception? Nobody has ever proven they can do that.

Olfactory - The false perception of smells and scents (e.g., burning flesh, candles)

Not me. Except when I perceive that the human stomach smells like hydrochloric acid sometimes, but for all we know that would be a true perception or an association. Just like when people look at food and can almost "taste it", except that this comes from an image perceived in the mind and not perceived with eyesight.

Not you. Except it is you.

Somatic - The false perception of processes and events that are happening inside the body or to the body (e.g., piercing objects, electricity running through one's extremities). Usually supported by an appropriate and relevant delusional content.

Not me.

What about your claims regarding seeing through the eyes of another person? What about how you told me that you perceive what your partner feels when having sex?

Tactile - The false sensation of being touched, or crawled upon or that events and processes are taking place under one's skin. Usually supported by an appropriate and relevant delusional content.

No! Scary!

You wrote, "The girl started pushing on me with all her might, "Get out of my house!" And you know what? I was experiencing an actual physical push."

Visual - The false perception of objects, people, or events in broad daylight or in an illuminated environment with eyes wide open.

Only ghosts, except we don't know that they are false, and everytime I see them other people see them too. They manifest like white veils that have a partial human form. Often I say nothing, and wait for friends to say it first. This is the only unusual thing that I actually see with my eyes and in the physical world itself, but, others see it too. All other unusual things occur in my mind's awareness and not seen/projected around me.

Yeh. Ghosts. Sigh. I don't want to re-explain practical reliability, but suffice it to say that despite thousands of years of ghost stories and testing, no scientific proof exists. There's no way to *prove* something doesn't exist, but if we perform a gazillion tests and fail to prove it does exist, then we've met our burden.

Hypnagogic and Hypnopompic - Images and trains of events experienced while falling asleep or when waking up. Not hallucinations in the strict sense of the word.

Not me.

Okay.

What can we conclude? Do we have a psychologist or psychiatrist among us?

Here's what *I* would conclude if I were in your shoes: I'd make a few visits to the university clinic. Seriously.

If I had several people telling me that I might suffer from delusions, I would check it out. You have one lady who has 30 years of experience with schizotypal disorders telling you to check it out. You have me, whom you have acknowledged as at least fairly decent at scientific analysis (you used the term brilliant). Several others here have all said the same thing. Would you let us do a poll about it? Would a vote make a difference? How about private messages? Maybe people should PM you if they think you should at least consult a medical health professional.

We have nothing to gain by making this recommendation. You have nothing to lose by going. You can still do all your studies and tests, just make a few visits and bring along *everything* you've written here and on your website, including the ghost stories.

When going through my divorce ages ago, a couple of people said that I seemed to be depressed and having some anxiety issues. I didn't think that I was, but I agreed to see a therapist for a few sessions.

At that same time my ex reacted very poorly to me in an e-mail exchange. I was totally caught off guard that what I had written could promote such a reaction. So I printed out and gave to the therapist every e-mail we had exchanged since we had split up (long story, but that was the bulk of our communication at the time).

Why? Because I figured that one or both of us (wife and I) were way out of line. I figured if it were me, then I couldn't trust my perceptions to be accurate, so I giving her an *exact* accounting was the only way to go.

The result? My perceptions about the exchange were accurate, which was further evidenced that summer as my ex did a number of other strange things to what are now her ex friends.

As for the depression, it turns out I *was* suffering from depression but didn't realize it. It also turns out that in my teens I probably had a bout with depression and probably one other time in the intervening years. Those four sessions taught me a lot.

To this day I am aware that I might suffer from depression again. Though I understand the warning signs, I still look to others (my current wife) to double-check my perceptions.

Mental illness is just an illness like any other illness. It's nothing to be ashamed of. If you expect your friend to get his heart checked out because of your unproven vision, then why not trust a group of skeptics (of all people) who suggest you might have a problem based on reading thousands of your words and looking at articles written by experts?

 

[Uncayimmy]

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once stated, through the character of Sherlock Holmes, "Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I snipped all the solid advice. I just wanted to mention that Doyle was a spiritualist who believed in fairies. This only goes to show that you need to do more than just pay lip service to the scientific method.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I've updated my main page www.visionfromfeeling.com

This webpage is about my extrasensory perception medical perceptions that allows enable me to know about the describe health condition information of people.

Follow my progress in having my ability perceptions scientifically tested and hopefully verified!

You can follow the discussion about my ability this investigation on the JREF Forum at the following two discussions threads

Progress, thanks to my skeptics here. I have no intention of saying things that aren't so.
It is a language issue, that's all.

How about this addition?

This webpage is about my supposition that I possess medical perceptions that enable me to describe health information of people.

 

[Old man]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling View Post
Regarding the link that was provided by UncaYimmy about psychosis, http://www.buzzle.com/articles/psych...disorders.html, I've read it carefully and here is my response (if anyone is curious):

You brought this up publicly, so I'm only going along...

Thank you, UncaYimmy! Your response was spot on, and I’m so relieved that you did it.

Anita, I have a couple of more things to add to my last post.

You’ve asked me for examples of your exaggerations. This is a fine one.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling View Post
You'd be surprised how it really is. No scientist reveals their ideas until they can do so in a way that ensures that if they've discovered something they get the credit for it. You'd also be surprised how much scientists steal others' ideas. Insider information.

You’re a second or third year under graduate student. You’re 26 years old. YOU DO NOT KNOW ANY SCIENTISTS, at least not well enough to make a sweeping generalization like this!

And, if you have met one who seemed hesitant to talk about his theory(ies), it was because he hadn’t yet gathered enough data to support it, NOT because he was ‘afraid’ that you’d steal it! Come on, get a grip, girl.

 

[Belz...]

I think we will all be happier once I simply disregard these repeated comments from you guys. I want no criticism from anyone regarding that I begin to ignore questions and comments.

In other words you came here looking for blind support, got caught at your own game, find yourself incapable of dealing with it, and would rather ignore the things that do not fit with your preconceived ideas.

Where have I seen that before ... ?

 

[Belz...]

GeeMack:
I have experienced correlation between my medical perceptions and actual health conditions. Not because I think so. Not because I believe so. Not because I want it to be so. But because it's been so.

How in the blue hell COULD you tell the difference between those possibilities unless you TEST for them ? You keep saying that you're open to be tested and proven wrong but your posts betray you and tell a different story.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Guys- I think some of you have done a fine job in this thread.
You have been fair . You have been patient. You have been kind.

But after all this, the contradictions contiinue to mount and the claims grow less, rather than more rational.
I suggest continuing with this is certainly doing no good and may be doing actual harm.
If VfF is tested, we will see the results. If not, further discussion seems unlikely to yield anything but more of the same.

 

[Ashles]

Is not visual perception of a person a stimulus?

Oh a completely different question?
Let me spell it out clearly using simple words (how on earth do you cope with lectures?)
It is NOT a stimulus for whatever you are describing.

It IS a stimulus for your visual receptors. It is a stimulus for seeing the person. But I wasn't aware your claim is that you are able to see people.

If I get information about the temperature in a room it's not due to the visual stimulus of a table.

Your claim is that you are receiving stimulus of a nature unknown to science. This is what we question.
So at the moment the doubt is surrounding whether you are receiving actual external stimuli conveying genuine information, or whether the sensations are entirely in your imagination/hallucinations.

So, nice try with yet another red herring but it doesn't change the central question.
I wonder how many more times I am going to have to explain this exact same thing to you?

'Brilliant student' was it?

 

[Old man]

So, nice try with yet another red herring but it doesn't change the central question.
I wonder how many more times I am going to have to explain this exact same thing to you?

'Brilliant student' was it?

Amazing, isn't it? Deliberately obtuse comes to mind.

ETA: How can she maintain a 4.0, and have such a poor comprehension of English??????

 

[Akhenaten]

Soapy Sam:
Thanks for stopping by to see if this nonsense is getting anywhere. I am having a study this week or next, read more about it on www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html The procedure for the study and other details will be posted there shortly, so come see it again!

Your gratuitous sprinkling of that page with references and links to this site, and particularly to this thread, speaks volumes. I'd even be annoyed by it except that a foot-bullet like that provokes more pity than vexation.

 

[Cuddles]

Is not visual perception of a person a stimulus?

No, of course it isn't. You keep using the word "perception" as if you think it means something is real. It doesn't. A stimulus would be, for example, the light reflected from a person onto your retina. The perception would be seeing the person. However, it is entirely possible to have the perception of seeing a person without having the stimulus of reflected light present. That would be a hallucination. This sort of thing happens all the time, in dreams for example, but if it happens during everyday life when it wouldn't be expected, then there may be a problem.

We are quite willing to accept that you have certain perceptions that other people don't (although I should point out that we actually have no evidence of this). However, you have so far provided exactly nothing to make anyone think those perceptions have anything to do with external reality and are not simply created inside your own head. To a certain extent this kind of thing is part of the normal working of the human brain. For example, filling in the details of a partially obscured face or seeing a 3D world even when one eye is closed.

The trouble is, it can malfunction. Most often this would happen when the brain is presented with a situation for which it is not prepared or which may be superficially similar to other situations. Paredolia is the name given to a lot of these situations, and is responsible for all kinds of ghost stories, UFO reports and so on. However, it can be more than this. Synaesthesia is an example of exactly this, where the brain consistently fills in certain details incorrectly. More extreme would be outright hallucinations, where the brain fills in images or other perceptions in the absence of any relevant input at all.

I would not say your medical claims are generally hallucinations. They sound a lot like the claims of people who see auras. The input is there, it's just that your brain misinterprets or adds something so that your perception is not an accurate reflection of reality. However, I think the main point you differ is that where auras are easily interpreted and described as a coloured glow around a person, you have no way to describe what you see to someone who doesn't see it, and therefore have jumped on several different sciency-sounding ideas as explanations. Your perceptions are likely no more mysterious or pathological than those of many other people, they are just harder for you to describe and therefore harder for you to explain.

This is what you need to accept, and it is your refusal to do so is why people keep saying that you are not being scientific or skeptical. One of the most important things in scientific testing is the null hypothesis - what would happen if the hypothesis you are testing is incorrect. Almost all tests involve trying to prove the null hypothesis, not trying to prove a positive one. By insisting that your perceptions are real, you are denying that the null hypothesis even exists, and making any scientific test virtually impossible. It doesn't matter how sure you are that you are seeing things that are really there, you have to accept the possibility that it is all in your head, otherwise there is no point in having any tests in the first place.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Your gratuitous sprinkling of that page with references and links to this site, and particularly to this thread, speaks volumes. I'd even be annoyed by it except that a foot-bullet like that provokes more pity than vexation.

Slightly puzzled. You addressing VfF or me?

 

[Ashles]

UncaYimmy:
Let's keep that thread and I will answer in it when I find the time. Please allow that I prioritate this thread and the upcoming study, and I will post there when time allows.

I find it interesting that Anita prioritises this thread which, by her own statements, she considers full of irrelevancies and repetition, and ignores the specially set up other thread with a single poster asking direct questions.
And she prioritises her own subjective studies over a proper independent test.




If I can build on Unca Yimmy's list to recap where I feel we are at the moment with this claim:

• Anita claimed she could read photos and video, but when met with failure, she dropped it down to just sometimes.
• Anita claimed she could identify chemicals, but then stopped testing when the results were less than accurate.
• Anita claimed she could do vibrational algebra, but refused to demonstrate it. Even using dummy data.
• Anita claimed to detect a vasectomy, but when presented with an opportunity for an objective test, she claimed she could not detect any in her study at the mall.
• Anita refuses in general to test small and simple things and insists on only testing the most difficult and time-consuming claims.
• Anita refuses to involve her instructors who are experts in quantum mechanics.
• Anita has approached a Professor of Physics, later upgraded to "three of my favorite professors". None of these Professors has apparently been interested in testing what might be the greatest discovery of the last thousand years.
• Anita claims she is going to use this ability (despite not knowing the technology, maths or even terminology to describe the ability) to build futuristic health devices using optical technology. She refuses to detail in what way she intends to use this ability , citing security and patent reasons. She also refuses to describe any optical equipment currently existing she would use for Vibrational Expreimentation.
• Anita claims she could, if she wanted, describe the mechanism behind her ability in more detail to a Professor of Physics and they would accept the explanation. But she refuses to provide it here, maintaining a level of scientific description no higher than layman level. It is unclear whether she has provided this detailed explanation to the three "favorite professors" and they have chosen not to explore it further, or whether she has, for some reason, simply not told them
• Anita continually blames IIG for delays in forming a protocol for testing
• Anita has claimed the ability to experience the effect of chemicals in objects viewed only as images from Scanning Electron Miscroscopes. Despite how easily testable this might be there appears to be no plans to test this latest ability.
• Anita is conducting yet further 'studies' despite being informed by absolutely everybody here that independent testing is the only real way forward at this point
• Anita still does not seem to understand that the sensations she is experiencing are not confirmed as resulting from real external information/stimulus, thus cannot accurately be referred to as resulting from Stimuli until confirmed by independent testing
• Anita is generating new claims and abilities faster than the previous ones can be adequately discussed and focused on.
• Anita's fatigue and recovery time have apparently changed throughout the course of this thread.
• Anita assumes her own recollections and perceptions to be entirely accurate despite it being repeatedly explained that there is no way she can make such a gurantee.
• Independent testing does not appear likely at the moment.

 

[Pup]

Pup:

So you're saying you can look at an unidentified medicine, and say what effect it will have on an average healthy person?

It is something I experience. I do experience perceiving medical effects when I look at an unknown medicine or substance, and I have experienced correlation to their actual effects, but only a test can conclude whether this in fact takes place or not. Until a test indicates something, treat it as just anecdotes.

See, that's an example of the kind of thing you mention, that would be an amazing ability that would change science as we know it, and you say you can do it without any hesitation. Definitely a million dollar prize winner.

This is an experience and not a claim. Yet I would be more than willing to test it just to find out.

Frankly, I don't believe you can. I believe the ability will mysteriously fade when actually tested.

I would not object to that. It doesn't really matter.

Pill manufacturers add colorings and arbitrarily choose the shape of pills, and that doesn't seem to affect your ability. So can you do it without seeing the normal shape and color of a pill, as long as the medicine is still effective? Otherwise, you're just guessing from the outward appearance of the pills like anyone else, and not really seeing their "vibrational aspect."

I'm not so sure, I experience specific effects and I don't think guessing could do it. Just my experience of it, that's all.

Have someone crush a few different pills into powder and mix the powder with a drop or two of food coloring, so you can't recognize them by their shape or color, and put each bit of powder into a different numbered cup, set a list of what they are on the table, and leave. You come in and write down which numbered cup is the aspirin, which number is the diuretic, which number is the anti-depressant, which is the antihistamine, and so forth.

Thank you, I will try to arrange that.

Okay, here's the deal. PM me with a mailing address, and I will mail an envelope with several numbered ziplock bags, each containing a pill that's been crushed and colored with food coloring, but is otherwise unchanged, so it would still have its usual effect on the human body if ingested. There will also be a list of what the pills are.

When you receive it, only look at the powders, without using any scientific instruments or non-paranormal means of identifying them, and post here what pill each number is, and afterwards, I'll post the answers.

Obviously, this isn't a scientific test. I could cheat by lying about the numbers, and you could cheat by tasting, chemically analyzing or otherwise identifying the pills by normal means. But if you cheat, it would be found out immediately in more rigorous tests, and if I cheat, it would be pointless because you could still easily prove your ability in more rigorous tests, if it was real.

All I ask is that if this ability doesn't work after being tested to your satisfaction, you consider the possibility that maybe your other abilities aren't receiving real information through paranormal channels either. In other words, if you truly believe you're perceiving accurate medical effects and yet it turns out you're not, you can't just say, "Well, I don't have that ability, but I'm still sure I have this ability" without some serious self-doubts. Otherwise, your abilities become like the God of the Gaps. Maybe they only work face-to-face with adults, on Tuesdays, when it's raining, but you'd need to do a study to be sure. Eliminating every possibility would take a lifetime.

If the ability does work, then all I ask is that you cut me in on 10% of your Nobel prize and 1% of your million from the JREF. Seriously, if you do have these abilities, it would be the coolest thing ever and I'd love to play even a small part in the discovery. I just don't think you or anyone does.