Vision From Feeling

[Uncayimmy]

Agreed 100% - I think there is little to be gained from attempting to ascribe complex psychological disorders to somebody simply from this thread.
Even if someone were actually delusional, posting "You're delusional" on an internet thread is unlikely to have any useful impact on them. Because the person is... delusional and probably doesn't think they are delusional.

My recommendation is that she get checked out by a professional. That's not a diagnosis. That's a concern. If you read my response to her response of the diagnostic criteria, you'll see that there are plenty of "markers" that could indicate something else is at work.

I'll use myself as an example. I have a phobia about heights. Just the other day I was driving on the highway and saw a guy standing on the Jersey barrier of an overpass. Behind him was perhaps a 30 foot drop to the road below. Immediately my body reacted the same way it has my whole life: Adrenalin pumped through my system causing a fight or flight reaction. My legs went weak. My palms got sweaty. I became anxious and spoke a few expletives to myself about how crazy that guy must be.

I know this is not a normal reaction in that if he had been in another dangerous situation such as having his car only halfway on the shoulder and was standing by the trunk on the highway, I would have intellectually known the danger without any physical response on my part.

I recognize that my reaction is irrational. Anita refuses to even consider that her perceptions could be irrational. She pays lip service to it, but her actions betray her. She refuses to acknowledge that anyone else could consider her perceptions as irrational. And when faced with opportunities to test the rationality, she continually evades. To me, at least, that's a cause of concern.

To take it a step further, I did not come up with some strange theory to explain my reactions nor do most people with simple phobias. I didn't concoct a story about how I was feeling his hidden fears or that a ghost of a man who died in that same spot was channeling his last seconds of life.

Anita has described some very strange experiences. Even if she said she knew for a fact they weren't real, I would be concerned. It's just not normal to see, hear, smell, taste and feel things that others don't. Constructing a story around them about detecting vibrational information and being an Arcturian is even more disconcerting. And then to create a website, visit skeptic boards, and ask other people to participate in verifying (not disproving) her beliefs is even more troubling.

Like I said, I'm not offering a diagnosis. I am sincerely suggesting that there is cause for concern here.

 

[tsig]

I think her Marvelesque origin story gives here one up though:

And he has a book to sell.

I wonder how many books out there contain the "absolute truth". I would think you'd only need one. Of course if experience is any teacher if you have the truth in a book it will take infinitely many other books to explain the "one"

I don't believe a word that Anita has typed. Her actions speak for themselves.

Grandiose claims, excuses instead of results, misuse of scientific terms, all add up to a pattern of behavior we have seen before.

She's just nicer than the others but the end result will be the same.

 

[GeeMack]

Wow, guess we should go easy on Anita.
This doctor hasn't been able to generate any interest or independent verification after three decades with this "plus-sized, Christian housewife".

I read that description and said to myself, "It's got to be Greta Alexander." And you know, it turns out I was right! I must be psychic, too. Or maybe it's because I live in the next big town up the road from where Greta lived. She was a sort of local celebrity. A lot of people around here were believers. Even the police departments called on her to help them find missing persons. As I recall, with her help some turned up and some didn't, and without her help, well, some turned up and some didn't. Sheesh.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
In response to post #1104, I have never had a paranormal test at my university. What I said was that during an assignment of identifying unknown chemical species, I perceived the 6-carbon ring, and the presence and location of nitrogen. I did not base any final conclusions based on these perceptions, but they were helpful as clues when backed up against the conventional means of identification. It was an experience, not a test.

I regret that I did not tell you earlier about the headache and nausea I've experienced during chemical identification tests. At least I know I am being honest so that I can live with myself. Let's all focus on my main claim, we've already established that I am currently not interested in testing the other aspects of the perceptions such as chemical identification and I am not likely to change my mind.

Post #1105, I concluded based on the given definitions of delusions that it is not what the perceptions are. I understand that regardless of my experience things may seem what they aren't, but I believe that the study and tests will be able to reveal the truth of what is and isn't. So at this point all we can do is assume, and speculate, and I think none of us can conclude or believe regarding the true nature of the perceptions until we have more data, such as from the study.

Post #1107, my statements regarding my mental health were based on the given definitions that I contrasted to my experience. Your post is littered with false assumptions. I do not place belief into the perceptions, in fact often I am in utter disbelief when I perceive certain health information, because when I then look at the person I can not confirm it with my ordinary senses. And it is in cases such as those that I am especially eager to tell the person (friend or family member) so that I can find out that my perception was incorrect. Yet, I've not been confirmed incorrect yet!

I do not reject objective evidence, I just regret your incorrect assumptions, such as that I would have had a paranormal test done at my school, or that I have belief in my perceptions being real. All I believe is that the perceptions have appeared to be accurate, meaning that the accuracy may be false for instance if people were just agreeing with me in some cases who knows, and still allowing the possibility that my skill might be cold reading. That is what I believe.

I have consistently stated that the "other aspects of the perceptions", which include reading from photos and video, occur infrequently and that I consider them to be untestable. They are not the claim I am investigating. Also I never claimed to be able to read photos or video over the internet, but I gave it a try to satisfy everyone's, including mine, curiosity.

I stopped testing for chemical identification because I was getting headaches and nausea from forcing perceptions. I will consider having a few trials now and then and then adding together their results, however right now I am emphasizing on my main claim and the upcoming study. And life in general.

I have demonstrated what I mean by vibrational algebra, see my past posts to Ashles, find them yourself. My interest in doing a project either at school or in my spare time of trying to apply my ideas of vibrations and waves into conventional mathematics is something I have not begun yet nor would I post it here.

I never had a study at the mall. What I had was a survey. Based on the results of the survey I have not concluded that I can not detect vasectomy. Please read my explanation of the survey (which will be posted on my website eventually) before making conclusions based on the survey.

Out of all the different expressions of my perceptions I am choosing to test the one that occurs frequently enough to be testable, that I have most experience and interest in, whose perceptions are the brightest and can come about without much effort and without headaches, and as such it is the most testable claim at this moment.

I have involved one of my instructors who is an expert in quantum mechanics into my investigation, by telling him about it, however I will not have a paranormal test at my school. My university and professors are not affiliated with my paranormal investigation. Because of the mere nature of a paranormal topic having negative association I will not involve my personal investigation with my professional life.

No I have no belief in my perceptions. What I have is apparent accuracy, and only a study and/or tests will tell me what to conclude and what to believe. Stop making false assumptions about what I think, what I feel, what I have done, what I haven't done, what I intend to do, what I don't intend to do, and what I believe.

If you accept that I believe that my past experiences with the perceptions and their accuracy took place as described, you will see why I am personally compelled to allow the time and work to arrange a study and tests. Meanwhile I understand that my experiences were not documented in a way so that you can all share the experiences and believe that they happened as described. And I know that. Even though statistics shows that ESP has not been proven yet and that it is statistically most likely that I do not have any kind of paranormal ability, I have experienced accurate medical perceptions and am curious to find out more about them. You can not take that curiosity away from me by stating stories about other claimants. This is my investigation. My experience. And I want to know why I've been accurate. Of course I could have a skill of cold reading that occurs automatically without my awareness of it, but what ever it is I intend to find out! And you can find out with me if you want! That's why I'm here! I will not rest until this investigation reaches a conclusion. Time consuming perhaps, and slow in progress, but carefully conducted, and please if you are impatient don't throw that at me. I am working on it.

My experience of being able to taste what others are eating is not necessarily defined as a false perception, since these perceptions accurately correlate with someone else's true perception. I think we need the opinion of an expert on this, I sure don't know the answer and you sure don't. And the fact that nobody has proven to be able to do that before does not allow a conclusion that nobody ever will. Everything has to happen for the first time, let's just find out from study and tests.

Just because something has not been proven does not mean it does not exist. It just means it has not been proven. Human perception and the reach of man-made instruments is very limited, and we can all safely assume that there exists a lot in our universe that we haven't proven yet. So why not remain open. I have experienced something that gives reason to investigate further, so that is what we do.

I will not comment on my experiences of ghosts on this thread. I will be setting up a website about my investigations of haunted sites soon, and then we can start a new thread to discuss this specific topic if we want to. We have to focus on my main claim because the extent of material posted here is becoming overwhelming to me, and now that school starts Monday I won't have but a few hours a week for this fascinating and very productive conversation!

Thank you for your concern about my mental health, but these perceptions do not interfere with my life. They are impressions, that's all, and I'm curious about their apparent accuracy, accuracy that was established not by my personal subjective experience of it but by objective means.

I already checked out the definition of schizotypal disorder. Only 2 conditions agreed with my life, whereas 5 are required for a diagnose. The vast amount of false conclusions and assumptions made by you Forum members already, allow me to have faith in my own knowledge about myself and I can disregard some of your suggestions that I already know to be inaccurate. But sure I can see a psychiatrist about my perceptions, I suppose it is relevant to my claim to do so. I do not think it is an insult that my paranormal claim raises concern.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Belz:
The reason I saw the need for me to begin disregarding some of the posts and comments was because most of them I had answered many times already and if I answered again it would not be productive, and also because I get criticized for posting wall of texts (although all of you seem to be allowed to post wall of texts). I just wanted to focus on real progress toward my investigation rather than discuss endlessly about irrelevant topics and y'alls misconceptions that I had already answered.

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.

Oh please why can't you people read what I've said and actually see what it says! I said that I have experienced correlation between my perceptions and actual information. That is, for instance if I tell someone that they had a vasectomy and they say yes. Then that is an experience of accuracy. It does not mean to imply that it was what I call actual accuracy, for instance if the person was lying. Nor does it mean to imply that I was expressing a paranormal ability, because it could have been cold reading. What it does mean to imply, was that there was an experience of what I call apparent accuracy. And I know that. Because that's what happened.

It was an experience of apparent accuracy.

I'm open for tests and to find out that there is no ESP ability. Nothing I've said or done contradicts that, unless in the mind of the skeptic who is fully convinced that I am not studying two B.S. degrees at the same time, that my English is so good that I couldn't possibly be Swedish, that I had a paranormal test at school when I didn't, that I'm here for personal attention when I'm not, that women should be on a vasectomy detection test, and so on.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Akhenaten:

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.

What's wrong with me providing links from my website to this JREF thread? There is a lot of relevant information regarding the investigation to be found here, and any readers who stumble upon my website and would like to know more should definitely be told about this JREF thread! I don't see why this is being criticized.

On the contrary, had I not referenced to this JREF thread, I'd be criticized for "hiding information from the readers of my webpage". Everything I do is wrong, whether I do it or not.

Or did you criticize the fact that I posted a link on this JREF thread referring people to my website for more information? The material for the study will be rather vast, and I already know not to post tremendous amounts of text on this thread unless I look forward to being attacked by skeptics who didn't want to read quite that much.

 

[Locknar]

I have demonstrated what I mean by vibrational algebra, see my past posts to Ashles, find them yourself. My interest in doing a project either at school or in my spare time of trying to apply my ideas of vibrations and waves into conventional mathematics is something I have not begun yet nor would I post it here.

Ashles, I must have missed this...can you help me out?

I have involved one of my instructors who is an expert in quantum mechanics into my investigation, by telling him about it, however I will not have a paranormal test at my school. My university and professors are not affiliated with my paranormal investigation. Because of the mere nature of a paranormal topic having negative association I will not involve my personal investigation with my professional life.

Again, I am confused...as you have in no uncertian terms stated you will not involve your school, and now you state that you have. I wish I could think of that word that begins with a "w"!

If you accept that I believe that my past experiences with the perceptions and their accuracy took place as described <snip>

I don't think anyone accepts this.

Just because something has not been proven does not mean it does not exist. It just means it has not been proven. Human perception and the reach of man-made instruments is very limited, and we can all safely assume that there exists a lot in our universe that we haven't proven yet. So why not remain open. I have experienced something that gives reason to investigate further, so that is what we do.

A variation of what virtually every "woo woo" claims.

I already checked out the definition of schizotypal disorder. Only 2 conditions agreed with my life, whereas 5 are required for a diagnose. The vast amount of false conclusions and assumptions made by you Forum members already, allow me to have faith in my own knowledge about myself and I can disregard some of your suggestions that I already know to be inaccurate. But sure I can see a psychiatrist about my perceptions, I suppose it is relevant to my claim to do so. I do not think it is an insult that my paranormal claim raises concern.

There is a saying that goes along the lines of "A Doctor that treats himself has a fool for a patient".

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Cuddles:

You keep using the word "perception" as if you think it means something is real.

Ashles, help me out here. At first I used the word "observations" referring to my subjective impressions of for instance the inside of human bodies. After several thread-pages of discussions Ashles and I agreed that to avoid misunderstandings we would use the word "perceptions" to refer to my subjective impressions that have not been proven to be reality based yet. And now Cuddles comes in and wants another word. I am very upset because it is never right. Don't you guys have like a skeptics' language that you all could agree to and tell me about so that we're all speaking the same language? I'm tired of being bullied around like this.

Synaesthesia is an example of exactly this, where the brain consistently fills in certain details incorrectly.

The issue here is that my perceptions have apparent accuracy with the real world, and that is what we are investigating.

More extreme would be outright hallucinations, where the brain fills in images or other perceptions in the absence of any relevant input at all.

We don't know whether there is input yet or what that input might be. The study and test should find out, for instance by disallowing certain types of input one at a time until the perceptions cease. For instance, will the perceptions work with the person behind a screen? I intend to find out. It is all testable, and in spite of everyone's (including mine) impatience, I am working on it and making (slow) progress.

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.

We are in no position to say that auras are not an accurate reflection of reality. Human perception is very limited and it is safe to assume that reality consists of much more than what humans or their built instruments are able to perceive or measure at this time.

By insisting that your perceptions are real,

What I am insisting on is that I have experienced apparent accuracy between my perceptions and the real mutual world. Apparent accuracy since a person might have been lying or mistaken about their health or about me being correct, and also not implying that it would be the case of ESP and not cold reading for instance. Regardless, I am curious since I've had some very interesting accurate perceptions.

you are denying that the null hypothesis even exists, and making any scientific test virtually impossible

I am not denying the null hypothesis. Please start reading from the very beginning of this thread and see how I've consistently stated this.

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.

But I know that! Please start reading at the beginning of the thread and when you catch up with where we're at now you might know a little bit more than your false assumptions about me.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:

And she prioritises her own subjective studies over a proper independent test.

I was specifically told by the local skeptics group to investigate my claim closer so that I can bring to them a claim that is better understood and that can be taken from its everyday experience into a test setting, and that is what the study is for. If you choose to criticize this then that's just being ridiculous. For instance a test might ask that the person I am looking at is behind a screen. Well, I don't know if I can do that? People aren't usually behind a screen when I see them in everyday life. So by having a study and trying this out I can add to my claim whether I can have a screen or not on a test. I can not simply agree to a test that is not specifically what I claim to be able to do.

Anita claimed she could read photos and video, but when met with failure, she dropped it down to just sometimes.

Infrequent perceptions, not part of my paranormal claim that I want to have tested, never claimed to read photos or video over the internet.

Anita claimed she could identify chemicals, but then stopped testing when the results were less than accurate.

Stopped when I got headaches and nausea, which were caused by forced effort. Inaccuracy appeared after headache and not before. Not the claim I am investigating.

Anita claimed she could do vibrational algebra, but refused to demonstrate it. Even using dummy data.

I presented an example of what I mean by vibrational algebra. I will not present any actual scientific applications of it here in this Forum but if and once they appear you may read about it in the same publications as everyone else.

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.

The reason I did not detect it at the survey at the mall was because I was also testing out the details of the perceptions and not specificly testing for vasectomy. Please read the description of the survey, to be posted on my website eventually, before saying ridiculous nonsense about it that isn't true. I have not concluded that I can not claim to detect vasectomy. I just didn't detect any in this brief survey experience for reasons that become clear when you read about how the survey actually took place, rather than hallucinate about it in your own mind and place belief in your inaccurate delusions. Schizotypal personality, if you ask me, or just psychosis.

Anita refuses in general to test small and simple things and insists on only testing the most difficult and time-consuming claims.

I am testing the type of perceptions that occur most frequently, that I have most experience with, that come about without effort or headache, and that as such are most testable. It's like if I were to enter a baking contest. Sure I've got lots of recipes, and some dishes might be easier to cook than others, but I'd rather cook my specialty, the one I've done the most at home and am the most confident in, and so what if there is more work involved, I am the one baking it. And if you don't like it, don't eat it.

Anita refuses to involve her instructors who are experts in quantum mechanics.

I've shared this with one of my instructors who is an expert in quantum mechanics, although I will not involve any of my professors or university in this investigation. Paranormal topics are automatically negatively associated and I will not bring this personal investigation into my professional life. Any other university is more than welcome to become involved in this investigation.

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.

My university is not affiliated with this investigation whether it would want to or not I would not allow it.

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.

You bet! For once, absolutely correct!

She also refuses to describe any optical equipment currently existing she would use for Vibrational Expreimentation.

I will not describe any of them here in this humble little skeptics Forum! When the day comes that I present one of my projects at a university, you are all most welcome to come and attend the lecture. See you there.

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

Well I've told the truth about it, and it is irrelevant here. Besides, wasn't it you who argued that we should not discuss any theories or mechanism behind the claim?

Anita continually blames IIG for delays in forming a protocol for testing

Yes I do, bless their hearts. It takes them months to get back with me each time whereas I reply to them in full within the next day. If they have any specific concerns they know they can contact me. I have agreed to all of their changes to the protocol with the exception that I do not know yet whether music would be a distraction or not, but that is hardly the reason of the delay as of now.

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.

That's right.

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

I was advised by the local skeptics group to conduct further studies into my paranormal claim so that I can present to them a better researched claim that can be lifted from its everyday experience and adapted into a test situation. Please don't argue with the advice given by them, they are brilliant skeptics not unlike yourselves only more so.

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

Skeptics do not seem to understand that the sensations I am experiencing are not confirmed as not resulting from real external information/stimulus, thus cannot accurately be referred to as not 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.

Is doing her very best to stick to her one and only main claim.

Anita's fatigue and recovery time have apparently changed throughout the course of this thread.

This only relates to the chemical identification test and has always applied, I just didn't tell you guys right away. Besides it is not the claim I want tested at this point. If you want, you can come down to North Carolina and watch me suffer from a headache and throw up from making several forced chemical perceptions within a short period of time. Of course you can not conclude that I am telling the truth, but seriously, you can not conclude that I am not telling the truth either. Come see for yourself won't you. It can be verified.

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.

I understand that. That is why I call it the apparent accuracy.

Independent testing does not appear likely at the moment.

No. The IIG West is taking their time, and the local skeptics group wanted me to have a study first. So I am having a study first.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Pup:
Post #1120, it is a wonderful idea. I suggest that I try it at home first before your expense of putting it together. I will keep it in mind, really I will, but I have a study coming up and a main claim to investigate. Thank you for your thought into this. And can't wait to see you in March!

Locknar:

Given you've claimed this gives you headaches and nausea, it must be unbearable for you to enter a drug store.

No, Hon. Could you people please sometimes think before you speak? I get headaches from forced effort. I do not enter a drug store and force myself to read things unless I feel like doing so and am comfortable with it.

Does this apply to "medicine" only, or everything in general? For example, if you were to look at a bottle of whiskey would you perceive any effects? What about say ground beef?

Everything, Locknar. Everything.

Taking a test on the Internet, self diagnoses, or wishing does not make it so. You have not been medically diagnosed by a neurologist.

And the same goes to you skeptics, none of you can diagnose me over the internet.

desertgal:
Not to be mean, but a person suffering from schizotypal disorder can not diagnose someone else as being delusional. I really don't intend to be mean. Also with the vast amount of obvious and proven to be incorrect assumptions and beliefs made by yourself and some other skeptics reduces your credibilities in evaluating on important subjects like these.

skeen:

It has been a year and a half since you embarked on this, and have still proven absolutely nothing?

I was engaged in a waiting game with the IIG for over a year and several months of this time. I then contacted a local skeptics group who advised me to conduct a study to learn more about the claim, and that is what I am doing now.

Simply walk up to someone who is likely to be skeptical and tell them what you see!!! The rest will fall into place.

I will not harass a stranger by acting as if I knew about their health, regardless of whether I were correct or not or had an actual ability or not, or make them reveal personal health information. Sorry. The soon-to-be-held study will ask people to volunteer, and at that point they are fair game.

Pick any of the professors in your University!

I will not allow my university to be involved with my paranormal investigation.

It is also extremely suspect that you claim to have told, and or demonstrated this ability to professor(s), and none of them have followed up on it. What the hell should that tell you? This is the greatest discovery in all of human history!

So what. And if it is a great discovery, it should be discovered shortly.

And your insistence on having synesthesia is just plain bizarre. You certainly haven't convinced me that you have it, and you still have no medical diagnoses for it. This is out-of-this-world irrationality. Why should we believe you have synesthesia when you are so clearly lying, or deluded about so many other aspects of what you're claiming? It is this one claim that leads me to believe that more than being delusional, you're a compulsive liar.

Since I am not lying, you are being just ridiculous. Besides I took an online test which concluded that I do have at least one form of synesthesia, not that that is an official diagnose. If you break a bone and you know it's broken, you can of course have it verified by a doctor. If you associate things in a manner consistent to synesthesia, you may have it, and can of course have it verified by a specialist.

And all of this, and we're only at the stage where you're gearing up for a study. Not even a test. Not even a simple test. No, a study, which will conclude nothing that we haven't already learned by now.

I was specifically advised by the local skeptics group to have a study. And the study will reveal lots, for instance it gives a tremendous opportunity for a non-paranormal ability to be revealed as such. You'll see, my dear impatient skeptic.

This ability should work on animals. If it doesn't, well that makes no goddamn sense whatsoever. It should, though. So to ease some of your false concerns, how about you go and ask pet owners when you "see" ailments in pets? You're always right, afterall. If you are correct, they will be hugely impressed, and again, everything will fall into place. You'll be on the news by the end of the week.

Of course it works on pets. But I have had the most practical experience with humans. The study and test will be done on humans, but this presents an interesting option.

It is beyond the point where I am fascinated by your mental condition. I am actually sort of concerned. I can see the wall of logical separation that is fighting you, preventing you from discovering the truth, and so can everyone else.

So because I didn't stand up on a soapbox and harass people asking about their health, you are concerned? I am being careful, since this is a sensitive paranormal claim. It is not like your claim of being able to fly, for instance. Patience...

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
Not to be mean, but a person suffering from schizotypal disorder can not diagnose someone else as being delusional. I really don't intend to be mean. Also with the vast amount of obvious and proven to be incorrect assumptions and beliefs made by yourself and some other skeptics reduces your credibilities in evaluating on important subjects like these.

I did not 'diagnose' you as being delusional, I am not a doctor. Unlike you, I do not diagnose people without proper training. However, in my experience, the thousands of words you have shared in this thread have conformed to the definition of delusional-and your complete denial only cements that impression.

I have not made incorrect assumptions or beliefs about you. The only credibility that has been reduced in this thread is your own. Kindly don't address me again. It gets us nowhere, and only serves to further your delusions and your contemptible behavior. I have placed you on ignore, kindly do the same for me.

I will not allow my university to be involved with my paranormal investigation.

Too late.

 

[Senex]

After 1170+ posts you rascals haven't been able to discredit VisionFromFeeling. You have to admit she has backed off every challenge. She's brilliant.

She deserves an award

 

[Pup]

Pup:
Post #1120, it is a wonderful idea. I suggest that I try it at home first before your expense of putting it together. I will keep it in mind, really I will, but I have a study coming up and a main claim to investigate. Thank you for your thought into this. And can't wait to see you in March!

Well, darn it, my schedule for the trip has changed and now I'll be laying over four hours in Chicago instead. I guess you can't just pop over to Chicago and meet me there instead of North Carolina, huh?

But the medicine trial wouldn't be any trouble or expense for me, beyond the cost of a stamp, since I can think of four or five medicines in the cupboard right now that I could sacrifice a pill from each, and I've got food coloring and ziplock bags. Five minutes work, a stamp, and it's done.

You've already said that this is something you experience, and we're only talking four or five medicines to identify, so it wouldn't be a lot of effort on your part--no long test with headaches or nausea. So why not give it a try?

It seems easy for you to talk about these things you experience, but apparently not so easy to demonstrate them to someone who's interested in what you can actually do.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

The next step for you is to take the test that *I* designed because the ability is unique to the individual, so the test must be tailored to the individual. My test won't allow some moderately clever fellow like myself to fake a synesthetic score.

What test? The study? Yes I am taking that, and thank you for a wonderful study design! I am so grateful to have a way of looking into the perceptions while volunteers get to remain perfectly anonymous!

I think I am laughing. UncaYimmy, you are so funny. When you asked,

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?

I answered,

I can't believe this! Not again! Since I've specificly answered this question every time it has been posted, again and again, on this thread, I refuse to answer it again, just because I say so. I will have to make you go back to previous pages, scroll and search, until you come across at least one of the places where I've clearly and specificly answered to this question, with a simple and straightforward 'yes'. I've answered this already! I don't avoid questions!

And then you say,

Okay. I will ask the moderators to close the moderated interview thread since you refuse to answer the question again despite your willingness to answer the questions about your ability for the umpteenth time. The whole purpose of the thread was to give a clear cut explanation of your claims without having to wade through the 1,000+ posts.

I think this is so funny. You guys just love to ask this same question over and over again, "would I accept a test result that concludes that I do not have an ESP ability..." and you love to see me answer yes, time and time again. I even answered it in that recent post to you, and I can answer it once again, because you skeptics love to hear it, yes I would accept it. You funny thing. Alright, I will go back to the other "special" thread and answer it there too, you guys love that question and maybe it isn't the answer you were all expecting from a claimant, so you always have to ask again, maybe hoping for a 'no'? And every time you get the same answer, so you ask again.

First, you were wrong. Period. Peanut oil is sold in three gallon containers at Wal Mart, so obviously it cannot be unusual.

Honeybunches I am from Sweden. We don't have WalMart. Peanut oil is not so common in Sweden and among all the people I know it is highly unusual. Lots of people I knew think about using the healthiest alternatives, so we typically use olive oil. Alternatively rapeseed oil, or "vegetable oil" which is a mixture of various, or even corn oil, but peanut oil I have never seen anyone I knew in Sweden use. Why is this so difficult to imagine? Why would I lie about what my own personal experience is of what oil I would have thought is the most common? Funny skeptics.

Your defense is that YOUR background is limited. That doesn't change a wrong answer.

My answer is based on my background, yes. It is not a wrong answer. I only moved here three years ago, and I brought with me a different set of experiences and expectations than what you guys might have here.

The issue here is the scientific method. Don't assume anything. If you're going to make a claim about something, know your facts. It would have taken you 30 seconds to type "Peanut Oil" into Google and found out just how commonly it is used and sold.

But I was talking about my background. "Don't assume anything"? Thank you, I will be using this quote in my future responses to the skeptics who assume things. I wasn't interested in how often peanut oil is used in America. What I said was that my experience would not have made me expect someone to use it. And regardless of what the actual sales statistics are in this country, that would not have changed what my expectation was at the time the perception took place.

So why even bother with any testing? You were wrong about seeing the intestine where you did.

That particular perception consisted of three parts:
1) A region just below the sternum, 0.0006 m² area out of the average 1.9 m² surface area of a man, giving it a chance of 1:3100 to guess it right (Locknar: this does not imply to say that I was guessing, I am just saying what the chances are for someone who does guess!). Correct.
2) Describing the feeling of strain and cramp in this region, out of all the many types of sensations this was a pretty good "guess" (Locknar: I am not implying that I would have guessed). Correct.
3) Identifying the small intestine as being associated to this health condition. Has not been confirmed as accurate nor inaccurate. In my opinion it is not plausible, nor is it implausible.
Either case, to get 2/3 of a perception correct, and with these odds, I'd say the paranormal claim has not been falsified.
Why bother with a test? Because my medical perceptions have had good apparent accuracy. That's why. A test provides with the opportunity of falsifying the claim.

Fact is, you didn't see what you thought you saw and you incorrectly interpreted what you say you saw. You're telling a guy to get his heart checked out based on what you saw, but if you can't tell what an intestine looks like and where it is, how can you tell what fatty tissue caused by peanut oil looks like?

I did not count the peanut oil or heart condition as correct perceptions. They are also not concluded as incorrect perceptions. My perceptions have very good apparent accuracy, and all I conclude is to have a test to eliminate things like cold reading, and to enable real, actual accuracy to be established, as opposed to the apparent accuracy of everyday experience.

You're not arguing rationally.

Yes I am, and you are not.

Incredible accuracy? You have told people that what you are doing is not to be taken seriously, then asked them to confirm what you said.

Incredible apparent accuracy. Very often the accuracy has been confirmed by scars or marks or other evidence that the person can provide for me after I have presented the perception. At other times the accuracy has been revealed by means other than me telling the person what I perceived. And all I conclude is to proceed toward a test, because the anecdotes took place as described.

And as is clearly evident here, you turn misses into hits. You don't believe it, but everyone else does. You're unreliable when it comes to reporting results.

Because my past experience was that peanut oil is not common, and I said I did not expect a person to use peanut oil, and because I did not count this as accurate nor inaccurate on my page of observations anecdotes? Or because you hallucinate that I'd have had a paranormal test at my university when I haven't nor did I ever imply it?

So, we're left with unreliable results reported unreliably. That does not incredible cases of accuracy make.

I never expected the anecdotes to be taken as formal evidence. All I am saying is that they are what compel me toward a test.

You should be testing all of the more easily tested claims first like chemical identification, crystals, tasting, vibrational algebra and reading photographs rather than asking a bunch of strangers to devote time to helping you.

Nope. I will proceed with the study on my claim which is medical information from live persons. If you don't like it, then don't. It is my strongest claim, occurs to the highest frequency, the one I have the most experience in, and it is a testable claim. Perhaps not as convenient from a test perspective, but it is the claim I am investigating.

If those simple tests fail (and they will), then nobody will want to spend time testing your medical claims. We all know that. Is that why you are refusing and making excuses? It seems like it.

So far the simple tests I have had have not falsified the claim. They have had good results. But they are not simple from my point of view. I get a serious headache and nausea, but, you don't believe it. I've already invited Ashles to come see.

Stop trying to convince us that what you have presented is worthy of investigating. It's not. Seriously. We have explained all of the other things should have done already that would have kept you from reaching this point. I refuse to go through them again.

I'm not trying to convince you that my claim is worthy of testing. I'm trying to convince you that I am convinced that my claim is worthy of testing. I've already said many times that my anecdotes are not evidence for others, but that they are evidence to me and that they compel me to further testing, to eliminate cold reading etc.

I speak for many when I say we just want you to see what we already know with a practical certainty: You are not special. You are but one of many who have believed themselves to have a unique, never before seen abilities who, through a lack of critical thinking and with a touch of narcissism, refused to admit the truth.

My medical perceptions represent good apparent accuracy. And include cases where I do not know what the cold reading would have been. And all I conclude is to arrange a test which eliminates cold reading, even if all that were to conclude is that I am good at cold reading. I just want to find out, because I seem to be good at acchieving apparently accurate health information. Does not imply that it is actual accuracy, or that I'd have an ESP ability. I just want a test to find out.

Thus we have proven that she cannot differentiate imagination from reality in several cases, which does not bode well for her in further tests.

What ever. I still think I may have synesthesia until proven otherwise. The fact that I associate things in a manner consistent to synesthesia (and in ways that were not testable on the website) is not a case of being unable to differentiate imagination from reality. I wasn't able to test for the other areas of possible synesthesia that I experience, such as associating objects to shapes and vibrational pattern. With the various types of music tests I actually perceive two, not one colors because the tones are not constant or straight but vary from start to finish, and the test did not allow a representation of that.

But the point still stands: She believed she was a multiple synesthete, but the testing showed otherwise.

The test did not show otherwise. It did not test the main aspects of my synesthetic experience, such as associating to vibration and shapes. Besides, wasn't it you who said that no conclusions about mental health can be drawn on online tests? And now you are trying to base a conclusion on online tests. Besides the test did report that I'd have at least one form of synesthesia. And it is unscientific of you to conclude that I do not have multiple forms of synesthesia when I wasn't even able to test for the multiple forms that I claim to experience. You guys are exhibiting the exact behavior you accuse me of, but you just aren't seeing it. I see it but out of niceness I try not to point it out.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Hokulele:

VfF, how much do you know about cold reading, and what do you think it entails?

I do not know much since I've only recently begun looking into what a paranormal investigation entails. I've been using the term "cold reading" to include all non-paranormal means of, in the case of medical information, obtaining medical information. Such as receiving clues from a person's posture, movement, the look in their eye, facial expression, and maybe even assumptions based on age, gender, clothing and more. Volatile recommended a good book about cold reading and I intend to read it. As we approach a final study protocol and once we begin working out test protocols, I will value everyone's input on what possible sources of cold reading might be available in my paranormal claim and how to eliminate these. It is still an early stage to begin this discussion. The upcoming study is all about, well, the objectives outlined on www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html I hope Akhenaten isn't upset because I made a referral to my website. I thought it was appropriate to do so to save thread-space.

desertgal:

Delusional troll babble speak.

Schizotypal disorder nonsense and hallucinations about inaccurate conclusions speak.
(Sorry. I really don't have anything personal against you, I just want to show you in what manner you are speaking to me.)

No, it isn't that simple. She IS a compulsive liar, but not intentionally. It's the nature of a delusional disorder. In her mind, fiction becomes fact. "I have thought it, so, therefore, it must be." Unfortunately, as you've seen, it is also impossible for her to accept any logical and reasonable arguments against her belief in her "facts".

You'd better answer this question! When was I lying?

Ashles:

This thread should be published as a textbook for standard evasive claimant behaviour. It's got the lot.

It will also serve educational purposes of describing good examples of skeptic behavior such as making false assumptions without any supporting evidence and then placing full belief into them, turning it into something negative against a claimant and throwing it at them. Criticizing a claimant when they do something, then criticizing them when they do it the way as was recommended. And the list goes on. (Not necessarily you, Ashles!)

I'm also totally baffled why Anita is giving this new 'study' such a build up. Does she still not understand it adds absolutely no more weight to her claim than the other anecdotes?

The study will be documented by attending skeptics. If I detect ailments that are considered undetectable even to any forms of cold reading (unless a person is wearing a shirt that says, "I'm in the I've removed my appendix club! We meet every Wednesday!", or has a tattoo that says, "It's ok - I've had a vasectomy!" then it is definitely interesting. But the main purpose of the study is to form a better understanding of the claim, and to form a stronger and more specific claim.

One question - how reliable is the sensation perceived from an image 'ability'? (The one decribed with the marajuana image from the electron microscope).
Is that good enough to test?
Do they have to be microscopic images or would any images do?

I don't know whether it is good enough to test. Can we focus on the claim I am here to have tested and perhaps keep this one in mind?

Moochie:

I don't know what "Anita's" up to. That also makes continuing to read interesting.

Well, stay tuned.

Locknar:

Using this [the peanut oil example] as one of countless examples, it highlights a systemic problem in that VFF refuses to admit she is wrong about anything.

Well I wasn't wrong about this one. My past experience is that people do not use peanut oil. So I was not expecting a person to use peanut oil. That's all. What ever the statistics are in the USA do not alter what my expectation was at the time of the perception. I am from Sweden. We don't even eat peanut butter there! Can you believe it?

 

[Jonquill]

Anita, if you are not familiar with cooking with peanut oil, was your first impression that this person had eaten an awful lot of peanuts?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Well, Anita, I think our time together is drawing to a close. In regards to the moderated thread you said you thought it was a good idea and inquired about how to keep others from "leaking in" as you put it. You said that this thread gets "overflooded with nonsense" and that you and I could make some "real progress" and have more "clarity" in the moderated thread.

Then you dropped out without responding to the single most important question.

UncaYimmy:
In response to post #1104, I have never had a paranormal test at my university. What I said was that during an assignment of identifying unknown chemical species, <snip> It was an experience, not a test.

You were asked to identify unknown chemicals. At your school. You used your super powers to assist you. I called it a test. You called it an experience. Whatever. The *actions* you took were identical. No mention of nausea or fatigue. I mean, if these physical reactions are "typical" why would you use your super powers knowing what might happen to you?

I regret that I did not tell you earlier about the headache and nausea I've experienced during chemical identification tests. At least I know I am being honest so that I can live with myself.

Wow. You can't even acknowledge that this puts a dent in your credibility. You can't even bring yourself to say, "I know it may seem this way and I understand that if affects my credibility."

Let's all focus on my main claim, we've already established that I am currently not interested in testing the other aspects of the perceptions such as chemical identification and I am not likely to change my mind.

It's all one claim, Anita. It's all one claim. You say you have a super power that lets you detect things down to the vibrational level. We're just talking about manifestations, that's all. And you keep avoiding the easiest manifestations to test.

Post #1105, I concluded based on the given definitions of delusions that it is not what the perceptions are.

If I print out our exchange about the diagnostic criteria, which includes your responses and mine, and show it to a mental health professional, will you accept that person's recommendation about whether you should schedule a visit yourself? If this person says no, I'll accept it and stop bugging you about it.

That is how seriously I take this.

I have consistently stated that the "other aspects of the perceptions", which include reading from photos and video, occur infrequently and that I consider them to be untestable.

That is either a lie or a delusion. You solicited people in this thread to test with photos. You tried it twice and failed. You also said:

I have to see the person, but you guys are right, I have received information through television as well. I just mentioned meeting in person because that is what I would prefer and video didn't come to mind at first. Well, on my radio show I would be reading people who are in the room with me, I guess I should have mentioned that.


"I detect information about the health of celebrities when I see them on television, but I'd prefer to meet with a person...I would love to try this with you anyway. Is there any way you could send me a video of yourself? Do you have a webcam?"

I just had a test with Madalch over Skype where he had one beaker with Ammonium chloride, and another with Sodium chloride, and asked me to tell them apart. I gave an answer, and I was incorrect.

Does anyone want to try medical diagnose over webcam? Madalch are you available for that?

Well send me a recent video of yourself. What I say is that I have to see the person. No contradiction going on here. I'd prefer to meet with the person but come to think of it you are right, I have made perceptions over television. The tests will happen, I am not avoiding them. If I am able to read people over video then that would simplify things a lot.

They are not the claim I am investigating. Also I never claimed to be able to read photos or video over the internet, but I gave it a try to satisfy everyone's, including mine, curiosity.

See the above and consider this: You made at least three readings in three attempts by my count. You did not claim that there were no perceptions.
You claimed perceptions. So much for infrequent, huh?

You did not claim they were different than in-person perceptions - you just claimed perceptions. You didn't say you were guessing - you just claimed perceptions.

And they were completely and utterly wrong. Then suddenly you didn't want to test anymore, just like with the chemicals.

I will consider having a few trials now and then and then adding together their results

Do or don't do, there is no consider.

No I have no belief in my perceptions. What I have is apparent accuracy,

No, you don't. Sorry.

If you accept that I believe that my past experiences with the perceptions and their accuracy took place as described,

I do, which is why I am concerned for you.

You can not take that curiosity away from me by stating stories about other claimants. This is my investigation.

You involved us, not the other way around. And we can most certainly tell you that you are exhibiting the same behavior we have seen before. If humans didn't rely on those observations, then there would be no humans.

Of course I could have a skill of cold reading that occurs automatically without my awareness of it,

You've already learned that by failing every reading you have attempted so far where cold reading was not possible.

My experience of being able to taste what others are eating is not necessarily defined as a false perception, since these perceptions accurately correlate with someone else's true perception.

Look, you're not guessing the taste as someone like myself might do. You're actually tasting the taste. Synesthetes do this consistently in response to certain stimuli. They don't have different tastes based on what someone else is tasting at the time.

So, if that's not a false sensation, what is?

I think we need the opinion of an expert on this, I sure don't know the answer and you sure don't. And the fact that nobody has proven to be able to do that before does not allow a conclusion that nobody ever will.

Nobody has proven that your perceptions are not the result of a mind control device implanted by your mother, an Illuminati agent.

People with hallucinations: millions
People with super powers allowing them to taste what others are tasting: 0

You do the vibrational algebra.

I will not comment on my experiences of ghosts on this thread.

That's fine. We will, because it goes to credibility and your own self-analysis of your mental health.

Thank you for your concern about my mental health, but these perceptions do not interfere with my life.

Really? You have devoted hours upon hours to them. They have made you alternately ecstatic, scared, worried, and angry (just to name a few emotions). They have inspired you to create a website, visit skeptic boards, and involve other people.

Maybe that is not "interference" as you mean it, but your life would be different without them because you *act* on them. A synesthete seeing an orange glow around the numeral 3 can say it doesn't interfere with her life if she takes no actions based on that glow.

But sure I can see a psychiatrist about my perceptions, I suppose it is relevant to my claim to do so. I do not think it is an insult that my paranormal claim raises concern.

Please do. And bring a printout of our exchange about the diagnostic criteria.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Agatha:

Seriously, VfF, what the difference between your apparent ability, and the apparent ability of a cold reader? Everything you have told us, including the anecdotes, can be accounted for by cold reading.

A wonderfully good question. I've experienced cases of medical perceptions with apparently good accuracy, where I do not know what cold reading would have been available. I say apparently good accuracy to account for the fact that in some cases a person might have been lying, or mistaken about their health, and that can not be ruled out regardless of how things seemed. A test will rule it out.

I've experienced cases where none of the means of cold reading that I am aware of were, as far as I can conceive, available.
*As far as I know I was not aware of the health condition prior to my perception of it.
*It concerned a person I had just met and had no prior knowledge of, let alone knowledge of their medical history.
*Health conditions that are not supposed to be accessible for someone who looks at the person, conditions that should not translate into external symptoms, posture, movement, clothing style etc. Such as a severe case of cysts of the reproductive system, the large vertical cartilagenous scar of a heart bypass surgery, that a person has ingested a significant amount of supplemental Lactobacillus bacteria, vasectomy, that the scull has been crushed from the top in the past, a large, permanent round darkbrown spot in the lower right field of vision of the right eye - all of which are examples of information that was confirmed as accurate. I have also perceived other such information whose accuracy was not possible to be checked.
*Accuracy being confirmed by means other than me telling the person what I think I saw. Such as a person revealing the information to others at a time after I have made the perception and I haven't shared my perception with anyone.

This is of course not evidence toward a paranormal claim. All it is is my personal experiences. And all I conclude is that there is something going on that I am interested in and I can't wait to find out what it is. I am not in favor of any certain conclusion of this investigation. Even if I have a good skill in cold reading I'd be fascinated by that also, since it is occurring automatically and so far with good, though only apparent, accuracy. Of course all means of cold reading must be excluded in each specific account of perceptions in order to rule out cold reading. And there are surely more forms of cold reading available in medical diagnose, than those that I have listed. I would like to wait a while before engaging in a discussion as to what cold reading might be available in my case, until we have reached that stage in the test protocol design.

Thank you for asking. Good question.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I think this is so funny. You guys just love to ask this same question over and over again, "would I accept a test result that concludes that I do not have an ESP ability..." and you love to see me answer yes, time and time again.

You have not answered it in the moderated thread. That is my specific request and concern. You can't spare 30 seconds to go to that thread and type three little letters, yet you can dance about here telling us how you've answered it a bunch of times already?

I wonder why...

Could it be because there is a major difference between how it has been asked here and how it has been asked in the moderated thread? I was careful to lay down a number of stipulations as background for my question. I did my best to leave as little wiggle room as possible.

I hereby give you permission, nay, I formally request that instead of replying to this post that you instead go to the moderated thread and type YES.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Well I wasn't wrong about this one. My past experience is that people do not use peanut oil. So I was not expecting a person to use peanut oil. That's all. What ever the statistics are in the USA do not alter what my expectation was at the time of the perception

Oh, I get it now. You're in Sweden where the use of peanut oil is unusual. I thought you were in North Carolina, you know, where they grow peanuts.

Your lack of knowledge do not make you any less wrong in saying that peanut oil consumption is unusual. Nobody is saying you *should* have known that. I, however, am saying that before expressing amazement you should have checked before stating something was unusual.

Furthermore, you have left this on your website as a statement of fact because you say it is "unusual and hard to guess because I would assume that most people use olive oil or other vegetable oils." In fact it is common and and therefore easy to guess.

The *facts* are that it is not unusual in the USA. It is very commonly used in Chinese food. You live in a state that produces peanuts. Therefore, even though you say you didn't know this and were not making an educated guess, it was a guess that was very likely to be correct.

Therefore, nothing of importance could be contributed to you guessing peanut oil.

At the very least you should amend your website to indicate that you simply believed peanut oil to be unusual because it is not used in Sweden but that you acknowledge that you recently learned that North Carolina grows peanuts and that the USA is the fourth largest producer of peanuts in the world.

Your site as it stands now is misleading.