Vision From Feeling

[VisionFromFeeling]

Moochie:

ETA: This is weird -- I type a colon with a capital d and it comes out as colon and lowercase d. Ditto with my initial -- I type it capital m and it comes out lowercase. Is this a glitch in the forum software?

Maybe the Caps Lock button was playing tricks with you. It's a mystery.

Dearest UncaYimmy:

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.

As I've said I'm open to all conclusions of a test that reveals the true, actual accuracy of the perceptions as well as their actual origin. And I've also stated that I understand that my paranormal claim may raise concern due to the nature of the claim. I was presented with lists of symptoms of various mental conditions, I read them very carefully and compared with my experience, and concluded that I do not seem to have any of those conditions. That's all.

And when faced with opportunities to test the rationality, she continually evades. To me, at least, that's a cause of concern.

Not at all. When ReverendClog and Pup each suggested that I meet with them for a test of medical diagnose I wholeheartedly accepted. I am not avoiding tests of my main claim of medical diagnose. I am just now focusing on the study that I was recommended by the local skeptics group that I do.

It's just not normal to see, hear, smell, taste and feel things that others don't.

Could be cold reading, and automatic association from one category of information to other categories of information, so to see an external symptom of an illness through cold reading, and to deduce the ailment, and to associate automatically to visual, felt, understood, and other forms of information relating to the ailment. We don't know that. What I am doing might be very normal. Or it might be something else. I'm just curious because I've had apparent accuracy.

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.

I am having this investigation, and I hoped that skeptics would be helpful in objective test design and analysis. I do get some of what I came here for, but I have to search for it underneath piles of nonsense, personal attacks, criticism and false assumptions, conclusions and beliefs. By the way I do not consider your concerns about my mental health to be personal attacks, I realize that they are relevant concerns in association to the type of paranormal claim that I'm here with.

tsig:

And he has a book to sell.

Of course. They always do. Let's write a book.

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"

Of course. The authors always recommend their entire series of 50 books, cards, DVD's and audio CD's so that you can get the whole idea of what they are trying to teach you. Oh, and you must attend the seminars!

desertgal:

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.

So when you call me delusional you have not diagnosed me as delusional? I don't think I am delusional. Tell me why you think I am in as clear and concise way as possible. I'm listening.

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 don't ignore any posters, because in amidst the mountains of garbage coming from some of the skeptics here, there are little glimpses of useful progress to my investigation. Somewhere in between the personal insults, inaccurate assumptions, and nonsense, I sometimes find something that actually is relevant to my claim and very good. And I take it with me. I've already learned a lot from you guys, so thank you.

Pup:

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.

Alright, I'll PM you my address. We'll give it a try.

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?

No, I've seen peanut oil before and was able to make that connection. Just that based on my past experience with people I could not expect a person to use peanut oil in their cooking. He said he uses loads of it when he fries things.

 

[Jonquill]

"No, I've seen peanut oil before and was able to make that connection."

Thanks, I was just wondering.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't think I am delusional. Tell me why you think I am in as clear and concise way as possible. I'm listening.

May I try ?
I think you are delusional because you claim and aparantly believe you have x-ray - like vision. You also claimed that looking at a picture of marijuana made you high .

Such beliefs are clearly delusional. It would be a simple matter for you to prove me wrong.

One way, would be to admit you are lying; the other, would be to submit to simple tests and show you are neither delusional or lying.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
I never get a chance to post in the moderated thread with all the work I have to do here. I will respond to your question in the moderated threat thread (Freudian slip) this evening.

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?

NOT A TEST! A school assignment in which I perceived information about the chemicals on their own and without having made the choice or effort to do so! So of course no headache or discomfort! Besides it was one or a few perceptions and not tens within a short period of time as was required by chemical identification tests.

It was not a test. I did not make the effort. And it was just a few perceptions.

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."

If you read all of my wall of texts I think I've said it somewhere.

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.

No, I am pushing to test the easiest manifestation of the claim; the medical information in live persons.

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.

Yes, thank you for doing this it saves me the trouble. I appreciate it. However I might need to elaborate on my answers and explanations of how exactly I perceive these things. How about after I've had the study and have some time at hand again I can construct a more elaborate description of my perceptions which you can present to this specialist?

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?

Forced perceptions. Not the same as in real life.

No, you don't [have apparent accuracy]. Sorry.

Yes I do have apparent accuracy. Apparent accuracy is what I call when I do what I can to check the accuracy of my perception and find out that it is supposedly correct. With apparent accuracy I still hold that the person might have been lying or mistaken about their health, or other reasons why it would not be what I call actual accuracy. I've had apparent accuracy.

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

Well in several of my anecdotes that took place as described, as far as I know cold reading was not available. The fact that you insist on otherwise is incorrect, perhaps you are hallucinating?

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 don't actually taste the taste. I perceive an impression of the taste. I do not experience it in the same way as I experience my own tastes. What? Synesthetes don't have different tastes based on what someone else is tasting at the time? They have the same tastes? Like me?

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

If the hypothesis is a paranormal ability, then the null hypothesis is not necessarily hallucinations. I've already compared my experience against the symptoms of hallucinations and it is not likely that I have them. What if I'd be cold reading without being aware of it? Is that hallucinations? No it isn't. We don't know what I'm doing yet. All I know is there's been interesting apparent accuracy, and a study and tests will be done.

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

In all fairness I don't see how a claimant's mental health would have as much say about their claim as you seem to think. Of course there would be reasons for concern, but, what if there was a claimant with mental problems and paranormal ability, if these were activated in a similar way? I've carefully read all the mental health symptoms posted here and do not find it consistent in my case.

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.

Just because I devote hours upon hours to something does not mean that it would be interfering with my life. I devote hours upon hours upon hours to studies when I am at college and it does not interfere with my life. Ecstatic? Hm. Scared? Nope. Worried? Nah. Angry? Yeah, sometimes, but that's to be expected throwing a piece of meat into a room full of skeptics. Emotions? To create a website is not disturbing to a person's life. It takes very little time, and lots of people create websites about all sorts of things.
Of course I've visited skeptic boards and involved other people. That is how a paranormal investigation takes place.

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.

I investigate them, that is the only action I've taken. Besides there are synesthetes who investigate their synesthetic experience with scientists.

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?

No, it's been asked in pretty much the very same way each time. And I've answered it in pretty much the very same way each time. I'm on my way to that thread as soon as I finish in this one, which is soon.
And I've invited you many times now to speak with me in a private chat room since I feel that it was much more productive than posting here. I've even suggested that our conversation be made available here for those who are curious, but what if I claimed that you are avoiding my invitation? Are you delusional for avoiding it? Or perhaps you are lying?

 

[Uncayimmy]

What ever. I still think I may have synesthesia until proven otherwise.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody can prove you don't have it. You have to prove that you do have it. Unless you are saying that we have not eliminated that it could be a mind control device implanted by your mother, an Illuminati agent.

Have you learned nothing?

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.

Now you're stepping into my area of expertise as a musician. I'm telling you that the tones do not vary from start to finish except in terms of attack and decay. There's no pitch variation. And because I am a scientist critical thinker, I sampled the notes and ran them through a frequency analyzer. There were no variations in pitch from start to finish except for attack and decay, just like I heard.

Do you really fail to see what's going on here? It looks like your mind is throwing up roadblocks to anything that contradicts your fantasy. You say you are a synesthete without ever once confirming it. You finally take a screening test that is designed to catch as many possible synesthetes as possible at the expense of false positives. You fail all but one test.

As a defense you claim that the tones varied from start to finish. First, do you think they would make a mistake that big? Second, I *know* for a fact that the tone did not vary. I based this on my ears and a scientific test.

This is a further demonstration of your inability to distinguish reality from imagination.

Or maybe you are lying. This is the first mention of seeing two colors that I recall. Even if you do see two colors, pick the same one each time. It was obvious that is what the test wanted you to do.

I'm serious, Anita, this is very troubling. Every time you are presented with contradictory evidence, you either stop testing or make up excuses. Nothing about your claims has been supported in the least.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
I've now responded in the moderated thread. It is done so in a hideous orange.

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.

My expectation of what type of oil a person uses was based on my past experience. At the time I had the experience I could not expect a person to use peanut oil.

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.

It was unusual to me.

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.

I fully agree to that. But the thing is, I did not "guess" or "perceive" (which ever it was) that he'd use a lot of olive oil, for instance. Had I said that, he would have said no, he doesn't use olive oil, he uses peanut oil. The fact of the matter is, that each time I express a perception presents it a chance of being inaccurate, and so far I've not been confirmed inaccurate.

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

The thing is I could have been wrong but I wasn't. All I say is that based on my everyday use of the perceptions, I've failed to falsify this paranormal claim. The study and tests will present plenty of real, tough opportunity to falsify it!

Diogenes:
Diogenes is back! Yay!

I think you are delusional because you claim and aparantly believe you have x-ray - like vision.

Not to be picky but to clarify what my claim is, I do not believe it is X-ray-like vision, it is far better than that. (Or worse than that, from the concerned skeptics' point of view.) Also I do not believe I have this special vision. I do not experience it with the same sense of reality and belief as I do the things I perceive with my ordinary senses. Often for instance I come across medical perceptions that I find very hard to believe because when I look at the person I can not confirm what I perceived, and it is at times like these I am extra concerned to try to establish the accuracy or inaccuracy of the perception. But so far I've not been confirmed incorrect yet. The study will provide with plenty of opportunities for inaccuracy to be revealed. I've experienced apparent accuracy so I want to have the study and tests to find out what the actual accuracy is, as well as what the source of the information is.

You also claimed that looking at a picture of marijuana made you high .

Yes I claim that.

Such beliefs are clearly delusional. It would be a simple matter for you to prove me wrong.

If you knew the details of how these experiences took place you might find yourself in the same situation as me - that it is hard to explain what was responsible for it and that the best thing to do, provided one has curiosity in this phenomenon, is to have a study and tests to find out. What I see is that you skeptics seem very eager to simply state that the experiences I had were not what they were, and that is not being objective. Of course my experiences are not evidence, but they are to me. You didn't experience them. But I did. The study and tests will prove what they prove. Wait to find out.

UncaYimmy:
Why are you avoiding my invitation to engage in a private conversation with me in a chat room, where we could make plenty more progress? The conversation can then be posted here and made available for all.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody can prove you don't have it [synesthesia].

Aha! Then why am I being told by Forum members that I don't have synesthesia? Aha!

Now you're stepping into my area of expertise as a musician. I'm telling you that the tones do not vary from start to finish except in terms of attack and decay. There's no pitch variation.

Then attack and decay might be it. I really do perceive two colors in association to music and tones. Sorry if that's a bad thing.

You fail all but one test.

The online test did not test for most of the experiences I have that are similar to synesthetic linkage. Besides I passed one of them.

As a defense you claim that the tones varied from start to finish. First, do you think they would make a mistake that big? Second, I *know* for a fact that the tone did not vary. I based this on my ears and a scientific test.

Even the chords? They do vary in the way I perceive them, and I see two colors. For instance one tone might begin with a bright yellow, then towards the end it becomes a purple-pink.

Or maybe you are lying. This is the first mention of seeing two colors that I recall.

Aha! When ever I come with additional information, it will always be considered too late!

I'm serious, Anita, this is very troubling. Every time you are presented with contradictory evidence, you either stop testing or make up excuses. Nothing about your claims has been supported in the least.

My claim is medical perceptions in live people.

 

[Akhenaten]

My claim is medical perceptions in live people.

You claim just about everything under the Sun. It's not your job to decide which of your claims we choose to address. If you don't wish to have them addressed, don't make them.


Stop telling people that they have to stick to subjects of which you approve. You're the subject of the thread, not the topic sheriff.


Stop accusing people of impatience. We were here before you arrived, doing sceptical stuff, and will be here long after you go the Way of Mayday™. It doesn't matter to us how long it takes you to fail to produce anything. No expectations will be harmed during this exercise. Take your time.


The rest is pretty good though, so don't stop that. It makes Dr Who seem like a stuffy old documentary.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

VFF, you said to 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." and, of her posts:

"Schizotypal disorder nonsense and hallucinations about inaccurate conclusions speak."

I smiled ruefully, because you see I have a colleague at work, whom I manage, who suffers from a schizotypal disorder. They are OK now they are having proper treatment. However, we went through months of hearing ever weirder and more improbable, and finally alarming stories (including self-harm and suicide intent), and still the person would not admit that they had a medical problem. They were convinced that they were being psychically controlled by another person who was trying to harm them. When I challenged them directly about their behaviour I was told, aha, but it's all in YOUR head, you've had a psychiatric diagnosis in the past (which is true, I've had depression), and you're projecting it all onto me ...

Funnily enough, the doctors were able to give my colleague some tablets which made the person controlling her stop.

One thing I often observe on these boards is that people seem to be utterly wedded to their own sensory perceptions and to find it a cause of great shame if what they saw/felt/heard/whatever wasn't really there. I don't understand this shame or loss of face. We all see things that aren't there sometimes - mostly we realize straight away. We know that human perceptions and human memory are very fallible. That's part of what makes us human rather than computers.

I would just add that 'delusional' is not a diagnosis. Many many psychiatric problems have delusions and hallucinations as symptoms and I'm guessing none of us on here is qualified to judge whether you meet the criteria for any of those, or if so, which. People have simply been suggesting that, if you are telling the truth, you appear to be exhibiting delusion and hallucination, and that these *can* be symptoms of various psychiatric disorders so you should probably get yourself checked out. By the way, I think that they can also be symptoms of other issues, such as neurological problems (migraine? I smell weird things in the prodrome period of a migraine, and migraines make me sick and headachy ...). Not to worry you at all, and I wouldn't dream of diagnosing you, but your posts give me cause for concern and if you were a friend or associate of mine I'd be strongly pressurising you to see a doctor.

 

[Kuko 4000]

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

It this is an example of brilliance, the meaning of the word needs re-evaluating.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm a little confused Anita. I can understand your assumption that peanut oil is unusual - its not used all that much in cooking where I am from either. However you said that you notice in particular things that are unusual - they stand out to you, when you see things where you wouldn't expect them.

So, based on what you have said, when you came to America, I would have expected you to have a period where you noticed peanut oil in peoples bodies - with the perception jumping out at you with no effort. Which would lead most people to think to themselves "Ah, they must use peanut oil for cooking here much more than at home". Yet you only seem to have discovered that peanut oil is not unusual on tis very thread.

Hence my confusion. Can you explain what I am missing?

 

[Belz...]

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).

Actually, I'd just critidize you for not using the quote function often enough.

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.

No, that's not what I was talking about. Those are not double-blind, or even single-blind, tests. You cannot eliminate the possibility of bias, lie or delusion with those standards. That's why I asked how COULD you tell the difference. You can't because you consistently stick to standards that shelter your interpretation from reality.

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.

Well, that comes right back to what I said. You CAN'T tell the difference. How's that test coming along ?

that women should be on a vasectomy detection test, and so on.

If you can't tell whether they're women or not I'd agree. That'd be a good way to test your alledged abilities.

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
Schizotypal disorder nonsense and hallucinations about inaccurate conclusions speak.

You are taking my comment out of context. YOU said that it was amusing to watch the rest of us annihilate each other. It's typical of psychic claimants to say, when their claims begin to fall apart, that it is the fault of us big bad skeptics. We are just out to "annihilate" claimants. That's not actually true, and it is typical troll speak. They don't want to let go of their delusions - much easier to blame the big bad skeptics. And we haven't been annihilating each other in this thread.

I haven't made inaccurate conclusions about you. I have made conclusions that you don't agree with. Doesn't mean they are inaccurate, nor doesn't it mean they are "garbage". Just means that you don't agree.

(Sorry. I really don't have anything personal against you, I just want to show you in what manner you are speaking to me.)

Irregardless, that isn't the way SD works. The fact that you would turn my mental disorder around to use against me incorrectly says a great deal about you.

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

Lying, by the simplest definition, is to give voice to something that isn't true. With delusions, lying is inherent, not intentional. IF your many wild claims are delusions, and I believe they are, then relating them here is akin to lying, even though you are not aware of it. Do I think you are dishonest? No. That would indicate that the lying is intentional. Do I think you are relating what isn't true? Yes.

So when you call me delusional you have not diagnosed me as delusional?

No. "Delusional" is not a personality disorder or a mental illness. It is a symptom. I have observed that, in my opinion, you have displayed that symptom repeatedly. It's an observation, not a diagnosis.

I was presented with lists of symptoms of various mental conditions, I read them very carefully and compared with my experience, and concluded that I do not seem to have any of those conditions.

When it comes to mental symptoms/conditions, it is impossible to self evaluate and achieve an accurate result. You need to consult with a mental health professional.

The criteria I posed for schizotypal disorder was a snippet from the DSM-IV's comprehensive criteria for that disorder, but I should have never posted it. As a snippet, it was ineffective for comparison value. As well, I am not qualified to attempt to assign any disorder to you, regardless of the similarities I see between your behavior and my own experience inside schizotypal disorder. I admitted that. I apologized for that. I will not do it again. And it does not change the fact that, when it comes to mental symptoms/conditions, it is impossible to self evaluate and achieve an accurate result. You need to consult with a mental health professional.

I don't think I am delusional. Tell me why you think I am in as clear and concise way as possible. I'm listening.

No, thank you. UncaYimmy has already done a meticulous job in that regard, and you didn't listen to him then. Why should I believe you would listen now?

It wasn't easy, to begin with, to admit to a group of strangers that something "went broken" in my mind years ago, but I did it in the interest of helping you. Watching you use it against me again, as the source of "projections", isn't something I relish, so I think I'll skip that.

The best course, for you, to eliminate or confirm any question about your mental stability would be to consult a mental health professional, and to be completely honest with him/her about ALL your claims, and ALL your alleged abilities.

There's nothing "wrong" about being delusional, Anita. It is happening to you, not because of you. The idea that mental problems are "shameful" and something that the victim can eliminate with an effort of will is one of the worst, most misguided beliefs of our society. A mental ailment is no different than a physical ailment. If your thyroid goes haywire, you get it fixed. If something in your mind breaks down, you get it fixed.

 

[Drs_Res]

VFF,

I am curious.

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.

Taking this into consideration, do you get headaches and nausea when you have to use a forced effort to read a live person? You know, someone where nothing just pops out at you?

Thanks.

 

[Pup]

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.

Actually, I don't think one could say the odds were 1:3100. Any description of pain or discomfort where it actually occurred would have been a hit, and people have quite a few aches and pains, if their attention is drawn to it.

Coincidentally enough, that description would have been close enough for a casual "hit" for both me and my wife. She has an occasional pain or cramping sensation that's been diagnosed as a minor hernia, just below the sternum but slightly to one side. I have a mild ulcer which occasionally acts up by causing minor pain or cramping, also a bit below the sternum and to the right just under the bottom rib. Both, apparently, are fairly common.

In casual conversation, people tend to notice correlations, not contradictions. Rather than saying, "No, you're wrong, it's actually an inch to the right," I expect the typical answer would be, "Wow, I do have a pain there! How'd you know?" That's why these abilities can appear to be real in casual encounters, but fade under stricter examination.

Pup:
Alright, I'll PM you my address. We'll give it a try.

I've got the samples all made up and addressed in the envelope, and I'll stop by the post office Monday and put it in the mail to you. They're:

calcium carbonate (an antacid)
phenylephrine hcl (a decongestant)
cetirizine hydrochloride (a 24 hour allergy medicine)
ibuprofen
aspirin

All individually crushed and mixed with green and/or red food coloring, but otherwise unchanged.

Again, this is way too casual of a test to actual prove anything, other than to satisfy my curiosity, since it's wide open to cheating, lying, lack of controls, and so forth. But neither of us would really gain anything by cheating or lying, since a stricter test would quickly show a different outcome. And in further tests, different ways of avoiding unintentional clues could be added.

If you don't experience anything, there's no pressure, no need to guess--just say so. If you only experience anything for one or two, just state the numbers you're sure of and ignore the rest.

You've said that this is something you experience, so I'm curious to see it work.

 

[Ashles]

I have demonstrated what I mean by vibrational algebra, see my past posts to Ashles, find them yourself.

No you have absolutely not done so.
I specifically asked for an example (even using dummy data) and you have refused to provide it.
You have provided no reason to assume 'Vibrational Algebra' exists as anything but a made up phrase.

This is where we are at
VFF: I have an amazing ability. I will use it to cure diseases in the future.
Skeptics: How?
VFF: Using the knowledge I see with my ability, a calculation process I have created called 'Vibrational Algebra' and Optical technology
Skeptic: Wow. But how will you do the calculations when you haven't yet done statistics
VFF: I'm going to be studying calculus
Skeptics: Uh okay. So what is Vibrational Algebra
VFF: I haven't learned the proper scientific terminology to describe it
Skeptics: Well use non scientific terminology
VFF: It's a secret. And I already gave you an example of it.
Skeptics: No you haven't
VFF: Well I wont because it's a secret
Skeptics: Well what about the devices you'll be using?
VFF: There are optical decices that do this kind of thing. You don't know anything about optics
Skeptics: Can you give examples?
VFF: I haven't built them yet. Duh!
Skeptics: But you just said-
VFF: And I'm not telling you about the current ones. They're a secret too.
Skeptics: So, to recap, you are planning to develop secret technology using secret calculations based around scientific and mathematical areas you haven't even studied yet to create imaginary future devices modified from secret current ones to solve health issues identified using a paranormal ability that hasn't ever been detailed by anyone other than yourself?
VFF: No it's completely different from that.
Skeptics: Well that's that then.

 

[Jonquill]

What would be the odds of her getting the five right by chance? 1:120?

 

[Belz...]

Skeptics: So, to recap, you are planning to develop secret technology using secret calculations based around scientific and mathematical areas you haven't even studied yet to create imaginary future devices modified from secret current ones to solve health issues identified using a paranormal ability that hasn't ever been detailed by anyone other than yourself?

Marvelous. Summarizing this thread in so few words. I commend you!

 

[Cuddles]

As an early defender of the moderated thread experiment, I must point out that there's no need for the moderators to close the thread. Since you and VfF are the only ones who can post in it, it's effectively closed already (unless she or you decide to revive it).

Not quite. Anyone can post in a moderated thread, their posts just don't appear until approved by a moderator. Since that thread was set up on request for two people to discuss the topic, we have not approved posts by anyone else. In general, people have been pretty good at not posting in threads like this when asked not to, but it is certainly possible for them to do so.

UncaYimmy - if you feel the moderated thread is no longer useful and think it should be closed, feel free to PM a moderator or submit a report requesting it.

Cuddles:
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.

I'm sure you are upset. However, the problem still lies entirely with you. We are all speaking plain English, it is only your refusal to listen to anyone or accept any criticism that forces you to pretend otherwise. And you are in no way being bullied. If you genuinely feel that being confronted by reality is equivalent to bullying, I can only add my voice to those who ask you to seek professional help.

I explained very clearly in the post you just replied to exactly why perceptions are not the same as objective reality. They may be simplified, distorted or completely false and disconnected from reality. Your problem is that despite, as someone else put it, paying lip service to the idea, you consistently refuse to acknowledge this point. Sure, you say that you have agreed to use the word "perceptions" to make this clear, but you use it in a such a way that requires assuming that they are actually real. Note the question I was responding to - "Is not visual perception of a person a stimulus?". No, of course it isn't, because a perception is the result of a stimulus. You use the word, but you do not use the meaning. No matter how much you whine about our use of language, it is yours that is at fault.

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

No, it isn't. The issue here is that you have no evidence at all that your perceptions have anything to do with the real world, and that you refuse to acknowledge this. While you have anecdotes, what has brought everyone to realise that you are no different from all the other woos who come here is that not only do you have no evidence, but that you refuse to admit that some of the anecdotes you have presented were just plain wrong. If you were truly interested in investigating things you would accept negative evidence as well as positive. As it is, when confronted with the fact that your claims about intestines were complete nonsense, you scramble around looking for excuses and complaining that we are being mean, instead of simply conceding the point.

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.

Except that we have no evidence of any progress. As has been pointed out numerous times, you claim to have been investigating this for a long time, and to have had these perceptions for even longer. Yet you haven't even carried out the simplest of tests and actively run away from them when they are proposed.

We are in no position to say that auras are not an accurate reflection of reality.

And it is statements like this that lead people to question your claims of education. This is just complete nonsense. We know very well that auras don't exist. We have equipment that can measure single photons of a huge range of energy, far more sensitive than any human perception ever could be, and auras simply aren't there. People who see them may have a form of synaesthesia or they may simply be hallucinating or delusional.

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.

It is not at all safe to assume this. In fact, it is incredibly stupid, especially when such an assumption apparently comes from someone who is studying for a physics degree. Of course, what's particularly amusing is that you bring up the standard "human perception is limited" in response to criticism of your claims of extraordinary perception. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

What I am insisting on is that I have experienced apparent accuracy between my perceptions and the real mutual world.

Yes we know. And as I pointed out in the post you are complaining about, and as many other people have also explained, it is exactly this insistence that is the problem. Until you admit that you have no evidence of this apparent accuracy, and acknowledge that at least some of your "apparently accurate" anecdotes are in fact proven to be wrong, you are not going to get anywhere.

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.

Again, I know you keep stating this. Most people learn very early in life that repetition does not magically make something true. This claim is in direct contradiction of the preceding paragraph, where you insist that your perceptions appear to be accurate. The null hypothesis is not that your perceptions are accurate but that there is a mundane explanation, the null hypothesis is that your perceptions are simply not accurate. Again, unless you acknowledge that, and I mean actually acknowledge it, not just say that you do and then carry on as normal with more contradictions, every second you spend discussing, or even thinking about, this subject is a complete waste of your time.

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.

I suggest you take a good, long look at Matthew 7:3-5. I have read the whole thread, as have many other people responding to you. However, it is painfully clear that either you have not, or that you have completely failed to understand a word that has been said to you. I have not made any false assumptions about you. In fact, I have not made any assumptions at all. Everything I have said is based on your own words and actions. The problem is that there is no "where we're at now" to catch up with. Nothing has changed since this thread was started, or even since you started your webpage. You still have nothing, and you still refuse to admit this or accept criticism.

 

[Moochie]

Well, here's the thing - I didn't offer a diagnosis. I offered an observation. You, though, in the above statement, ARE offering an armchair diagnosis. You are certain that any observations of a personality disorder and/or psychiatric problems are incorrect. You are diagnosing Anita to be free of any disorder.

No, I'm not. I'm just saying that I don't see what you say you see.

Not arguing with you - just curious as to why you would immediately do something you just advised against.

I didn't.

Probably not, but it is my opinion, and I am entitled to it. And I have not made an armchair diagnosis of a personality disorder. I've said that, speaking from my point of view as someone with a personality disorder, I've observed some marked similarities in Anita's thousands of words, and my belief that she is delusional is not unfounded. Period. It's an observation, not a diagnosis.

No argument from me.

Her words, if true, fit the definition of delusional, and she would benefit from psychiatric help. If they are deliberate lies, then, obviously, not all her dogs are barking, and she would also benefit from psychiatric help. Either way, encouraging her to seek psychiatric help is not a bad thing, nor is it wrong.

No argument from me. And nice to see the qualifier, "if true."


M.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
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.

We all want to understand your claim better. Unfortunately we have hit a problem in that any part of it that you can describe in more technical detail has suddenly become secret.

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.

Oh wow. Really? You claim to want to be a scientist and you genuinely can't understand why this might be asked or part of the test?
Every single thing you do seems to cry out 'cold reading'. Every single ability you have described appears to be too unreliable to test, except the exact one in which cold reading could be a factor. So obviously there is a desire to remove opportunity for cold reading.
Anita, people are only going by the (limited) descriptions you yourself have provided. You say you can see through clothes so a sheet shouldn't be a problem. But then for some reason it is and you need to see the head. To those of us with more experience of this kind of claim this screams cold reading in many different ways.

And, from a scientific point you try to restrict the variables until you can focus on exactly what is happening. That is a ridiculous complaint from somebody aiming to be a scientist one day.
Someone claiming to be able to read someone else's mind wouldn't be allowed to use their own choice of words and second person because it opens the demonstration up to being passed by other means. This is why the test cannot simply be set up however you personally choose. It has to be agreed by those testing otherwise it is (another) pointless test.
Scientists set up artificial situations to control for variables and understand the central concept being analysed.
It's frankly astonishing this needs to be explained to you. A layman would understand this.

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

Potentially world changing... easier to test than the main claim...
Sure let's ignore them.

I presented an example of what I mean by vibrational algebra.

Completely and totally untrue. Link to the post in which you did so.

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.

Your website?

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.

Unclear answer follwed by attempted redirect. Yet again.
So we're agreed it was a fail. Good, moving on...

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.

Certainly not 'the most testable' as explained many times before.

It's like if I were to enter a baking contest.

Lunatic analogy proximity warning...

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.

And that refutes the testing concern regarding cold reading... how exactly?
Oh, it doesn't.
The hard science is coming thick and fast here.

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.

You'd have thought he would have actually been interested in being involved. You would have thought that, if he believed you, he would be badgering you day and night to test this further.
It is totally incomprehensible that an expert in Physics could hear such a story and believe it and then completely ignore it.
So he either didn't believe you.
Or it never happened. (And what happened to the other two professors?)

I notice we are never told what his actual response was. Other than he agreed it was Vibrational Algebra. (That brand new field of physics. That he also apparently also isn't interested in.)

Paranormal topics are automatically negatively associated

Gee I wonder why?

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.

So you approach skeptical web forums but not universities?
They would have to approach you? And then be told it's all secret so you can't tell them anything anyway. Or be forced to sign draconian non-disclosure agreements.

I guess they could always get in contact with Professor Uninterested at your college.

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

And Princess Anita, Queen Ruler of the Universe makes a welcome reappearance.

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.

You refuse to describe standard current Optical Equipment that might be relevent to this claim?
Yes this really adds to your credibility and credentials.

It's always interesting what happens when we drill down on the specifics in these claims. Evasion is almost guaranteed.
The 'it's a secret' and 'you'll read about it when everyone else in the world does' excuses are almost crushingly mundane.

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?

It is not required by a claimant and is not relevant to a million dollar challenge claim.

However you started this all off with attempts to explain the mechanism. Many here have scientific backgrounds so it is of great interest when a claimant says they have ideas about the mechanism.
With these claims any offered explanation is by definition going to breach new areas of science so we always enjoy listening to such explanations. Up until the point where the person starts either talking nonsense, or runs out of the limited science they know and has been pinned down on areas where they would prefer to be vague.

You claimed you were actually going to build devices based on your knowledge of the mechanism behind this claim. That was of course of great interest. It implied a real demonstrable understanding of a new area of science.
Until (entirely expectedly) you suddenly said it was all secret and couldn't even describe the most basic parts of the mechanism or process.
And now you are trying the old 'But I don't have to explain it' defence.

You didn't have to try to explain it.
But you did choose to try. And you failed.

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.

Why not contact a University? Then you could get proper scientific testing?
I'm interested. Why won't you do that?
(Another University obviously since you have stated a bizarre and inexplicable refusal to use the University you are currently studying at to look at the amazing ability you claim to have)

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.

Good luck to them. I wonder if they will ever even get these 'studies'.

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.

Or equally literally correctly:

"the sensations I am experiencing are not confirmed as not resulting from a mind control probe, thus cannot accurately be referred to as not resulting from a mind control probe until confirmed by independent testing."

Hopefully that demonstrates why your thinking there is unscientific and silly.
It won't though as all the previous attempts haven't.

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

You have made many claims here. You are only agreeing to testing on one of those claims. The one most likely to be open to cold reading.

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.

So the only other test you will agree to is that you can be sick?
Funny how none of this appeared in your original claim or on your website.

So how many can you do before the nausea and headache kick in?
Even if it were one per day then a test could be built around it.
If you really wanted to test this.
But of course you don't.

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

Well that's fine and agreed. But elsewhere you insist we accept your anecdotes as having happened to you and trust your stories and descriptions.
Which we can't without unbiased evidence.

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.

I think they would rather see properly conducted independent testing.

Still we will see what your 'study' shows.
Although I am feeling strangely psychic about that - it either
1. won't happen or
2. it will happen and apparently confirm your abilities or
3. it will happen and won't entirely confirm your abilities yet through lengthy rationalisations and redefinitions and vagueness of descriptions it somehow then will confirm your abilities

The one thing it won't do is convince you the ability isn't really there.

However I am open to being proven wrong.