Akhenaten:
In any case, how do you know your perceptions were correct? Quick angiogram?
He reported that according to how he knows his health his heart is in perfect condition. Had this person said that he experiences heart pain or any other heart problems then my perception of healthy heart would have been incorrect. I realize that health of heart can at times become a vague topic but at least there was opportunity for a non-ability to present false perceptions. Logically I was fully expecting there to be a heart problem, but I perceived a healthy heart. This is not proof. All it says is that we did not reveal inaccuracy. It means that we proceed toward having more experience with the perceptions.
Again, why not write down what you mean instead of vague nonsense like "good chemistry".
Because those are key words that carry a lot of significance to me. Before I was told anything about the person's health I then read from my notes and explained in full detail what my notes implied. It is like my stenography.
How do you know your perceptions were correct? On-the-spot biopsy?
We don't know that they were accurate. We know that my perceptions correlated with the individual's own experience of his health, some of which is probably backed up by medical verification. The thing is we didn't encounter inaccuracy. The study can not provide evidence for any kind of ability, but it can provide evidence against an ability.
What an odd combination. I wonder what the average patient would say if her doctor concluded an examination by stating that her elbows and intestines are fine. Actually, I don't wonder at all.
I am not a doctor. I am recording my impressions. When elbows are fine that means they are not stiff and are not in pain. See, it is my stenography again. I didn't want to sit and make tons of explicit notes when I knew that in this case I could just pick up my key words and read out what I saw. I'll do better notes from now on, I do realize that I must do so. Intestines are fine is my short-hand way of writing that I see no constipation, diverticulosis, weak intestinal wall, severed intestinal wall, infections, cancers, etc, in short, that I detect no health problems with the intestines or digestive system. Instead of writing out everything I
don't see, I just say that they are fine to me.
How do you know your perceptions were correct? Elbowgastroscopy?
The person reports that he is not aware of having any problems that are perceived by him nor medically diagnosed relating to his elbows or digestive system.
It was progress when it was brought up weeks ago. Your pretending to have just discovered this is disingenuous.
I yet again confirmed that I am able to see the person from back and that is some progress. It strengthens that knowledge.
VisionFromFeeling said:
I continue to look at him and I still find nothing wrong. I write, "brain fine"
Akhenaten said:
Which careful analysis you immediately confirmed with an EEG.
It means that according to my perceptions he does not suffer from headaches, migraines, brain injury, brain cancer, and that I didn't detect anything wrong with it. That I had nothing "bad" to say about the brain.
VFF said:
"left shoulder tired", but this again was very insignificant and not something I would ever mention, since I claim to be also able to detect the extent of ailments I knew that this was tremendously minor.
Akhenaten said:
Then why did you mention it.
To "not mention it" I mean it is not something I would put as an answer on a form. It is not significant enough to note.
This lapse of objectivity was brought about by seeing the volunteer write down what you believed to be a list of ailments, leading you to further believe that there was something there to find. That's why you're clutching at straws like Adam's Apples and tired shoulders.
Exactly! Then at the end I decided that my conclusion would be that I found nothing. The tired shoulder and something in the throat were so insignificant that I did not state them as answers.
Possibly due to the volunteer being a smaller-than-average person? How did you establish "average size lungs" anyway?
Average based on what I've perceived before. Of course that is only my impression and I wrote it down. The relative sizes of organs are irrelevant for tests. I was just writing stuff down anyway, I then presented a conclusion based on my notes and scribbles.
How do you know that your perceptions were correct? Portable Chest X-Ray machine and Lung Capacity Test?
We
don't know that all is correct, but what we
do have is the person's accounts of his health. And this time the person was a skeptic, and not friend or family, so give him *some* credibility.
If this ability was at all as real and as useful as you've claimed it to be, you'd have no reason to be nervous. If a normally-sighted person is asked to identify an apple, a banana and a watermelon, do you think they become nervous beforehand?
Lots of people who have a skill can feel nervous before demonstrating it. Lots of excellent speakers, or singers, feel nervous before they start. Don't worry, it's ok. I will never blame anything on having been nervous! It doesn't mean anything! I'll be ok!
A positive sign of your nervousness is that maybe you're starting to have doubts of your own about this "ability"
Not based on doubts. Plenty of people feel nervous when they anticipate good things too. Like when someone is going to kiss you for the first time, or when you're waiting for Christmas. Don't worry about whether I was nervous or not, it doesn't interfere with anything.
How did you tell the difference between a jacket blocking your vision and a lack of having any vision at all during your survey?
Because I know how well I can always see inside a person.
I though there was to be no talking. Were the "obvious curiosity" and your explanation transmitted telepathically?
No speaking
during the viewing. I did cheat though, when I told him during I was viewing, "note that I tend to not look at the area I am viewing images from and rather I choose to look to the side, look away, or close my eyes instead, because the images form in my mind and are not based on what I see with my eyes at that time".
Everything verifiable that you've said so far about this person is based on his appearance. About all you've demonstrated is that you're not even very good at cold reading.
If I'm not good at cold reading, then that's a good thing for our purposes. Because the accuracy comes from somewhere. If not from cold reading, then what...?
Further, your perceptions in no way indicate that the volunteer is in excellent health. Your lack of seeing anything indicates only that you can't see anything, which is already known.
No. One way I can report that a person is in good health is if I sense none of the health problems that I know of, such as pain, discomfort, difficulty moving, injuries, or various problems with the organs. According to my perceptions of his body he is in excellent health, and according to his own accounts of his health he is in excellent health. No. If I "do not" see "anything", that means that I am not seeing heart disease, brain disease, digestive system disease etc., which in itself is a perception. And it correlated with what he believes his health to be. Of course I do not count "points" for myself from this. All I conclude from this is that I
did not collect inaccuracy points.
That's because you can't see inside people. Why don't you reach this reasonable conclusion, like everyone else has?
Because when I describe the medical perceptions I have, it correlates really well with the health of persons. I am unable to conclude that the perceptions are not based on true information, nor am I able to conclude that they are based on true information. If you had witnessed my "anecdotal" past experiences you would probably find yourself in the same situation as me. And that is why we have the Study
TM and the Test
TM.
Turns out, your peformance was a shambles because you were so sure, based on the dude's appearance, that he'd written a list of ailments for you to guess at.
Based on my
logical thinking based on the dude's appearance he would have health problems. Based on my
perceptions based on the images I saw in my mind the dude was in excellent health. My logical assumptions were in shambles, but my perceptions were not in shambles.
My take is that you were unable to cold read the ailments that you were sure were on the list, so you made a few vague statements about a few totally unrelated organs and joints, hoping that the ailments on the list related to the myriad organs and joints that you DIDN'T mention. I can hear you, with my Hearing from Feeling, saying "I KNEW there was something wrong with the neck, but it was obscured by the Adam's Apple." or "I didn't notice the missing kidney because I was distracted by the unusually small liver."
The ONLY thing on his list was a severed diaphragm that has healed back to normal perfectly and has no lasting discomfort. I missed ONE health information, and it is not associated to current symptoms such as discomfort, pain, or disturbance to the body's functions, so it is no big deal that I didn't detect it, it has healed back to perfect, he said. Nope. I wrote that the shoulder felt slightly tired, and I wrote that I can feel his adam's apple, and I wrote that neither of these are my answers to be checked for accuracy since I perceive that he experiences them to a very insignificant extent and that he would not state them as significant. The conclusion I gave to this volunteer, as well as to Dr. Carlson who wanted to know how it went, was that I found
nothing wrong. I did not sense anything wrong with the neck. Just the adam's apple, and that is not wrong. Nope. An unusually small liver would never distract me. Trust me, none of these other perceptions that are descriptions of size for instance, would make excuses for me missing something. Besides, my "out" is that I have never claimed to be able to detect everything that is considered to be there. I already have an out when I don't detect something that has healed back to normal.
A severed diaphragm ?!eleven?!
I don't have a medical background, but a bit of Google-fu seems to support my initial thought that this would be moderately fatal. Even if it weren't, the iron lung would be a giveaway for cold reading.
Eleven?? What? No, he recovered very nicely! Besides his lungs were never injured in the accident, he said so.
That's the point a lot of people have been trying to make you see. These mini-studies, or whatever, are totally meaningless. You are alone in ascribing meaning to them.
Nope. If I had said "you have a heart disease, you feel pain in the heart", or "you do not exercise because your heart looks to be in terrible shape", I would have received two incorrect points right there (because he has no pain in the heart, and he exercises a lot), and in a room full of skeptics and nowhere to hide.
There was plenty of opportunity to be wrong, but I wasn't wrong.
This is total fish piss. The only place failures don't count against you is in your own mind. You've claimed everything under the Sun, and beyond that to Arcturus, yet you can't detect a severed diaphragm, which most definitely wasn't supposed to be there. (hence the requirement for a nasty accident)
If I claim to perceive something and that perception is totally inaccurate then that is a failure that counts against my paranormal claim. The diaphragm has healed perfectly, there is no sensation of discomfort or other symptom that he can feel that would be a clue for me to feel to detect it. Sometimes past accidents heal back to normal perfectly and there is no trace of them anymore. I don't understand the red part.
Count the hits, dismiss the misses. We know that you think this is how it works. It isn't.
How wrong you are. I do
not count the hits. If I seem to be correct then that does not provide evidence toward the claim, it only means that I proceed with the study and tests. If I were incorrect then that would be a miss and I would count it against. If I do not detect something that was considered to be there then that is not a miss. I don't claim to detect everything. But once I claim a perception then that is open to be checked for accuracy.
You are still so missing the point. There is no inaccuracy to be revealed at this point since there is no claim specific enough to be tested. YOU are the only one who has failed to dismiss ESP because you don't want to, while everyone else involved in this discussion dismissed it months ago. You proceed toward lunacy.
If I make a perception and it turns out to not correlate to actual information then that is an inaccuracy that becomes revealed on a study or a test. There doesn't need to be a specific claim to do that. EVERYONE has failed to dismiss the ESP hypothesis because I have not had incorrect perceptions revealed yet. If I do not have ESP then I want to find out that. I'm not hiding from anything. On what basis have you dismissed my paranormal claim? What evidence speaks against my claim of detecting accurate health information when I look at people, information that should not be detectable to ordinary senses of perception? Of course I do not have
evidence to prove it, but there is no evidence to disprove it yet either, so that is what the study and tests are for. I proceed toward finding out the source and actual accuracy of these perceptions.
In any case, I look forward to documentation of the severed diaphragm.
I can ask the person to come here and talk to you fine people. By the way why do we need documentation of the severed diaphragm, it is not something I detected?
ETA: tl;dr = another anecdote.
No. This one is not just an anecdote anymore. It was witnessed by a room full of skeptics, so it is a little bit better than a simple anecdote. And the volunteer himself (the "dude"), was a skeptic.
Your main problem is a lack of evidence that there's anything to study and a lot of evidence that you need to be addressing other problems.
I have had experiences that compel me to proceed toward a study and a test because I have failed to falsify the paranormal claim on my own and need the involvement of others, ie. skeptics. Evidence that something's going on will be provided by the study. Maybe there is already going to be "some" evidence from Thursday's meeting where I did this with a skeptic where the claim was not falsified. I am receiving accurate health information when I look at people. That is not a problem. I find it interesting. What is the source of the information? Is it cold reading? Is it paranormal? I want to know. I have every right to conduct an investigation into my experience, and your involvement is entirely your choice.
I asked why you were going to attend a local sceptical group meeting, intending to find out specifically how it would assist in the study. While you haven't exactly answered that question, your response is quite revealing and I'm sure the posters in the "Attention Seeking" school of thought will pick up on it.
These are the skeptics who are available to me locally and can participate in the study and also tests. I have every reason to want to meet with them and get things arranged.
No you can't. We'd have some evidence if you could.
We have some Upcoming Evidence
TM coming up. I gave it an honest try on Thursday's meeting, and failed to falsify the paranormal claim.
According to your initial claims, you can see inside people's bodies, the images you see are better than MRI or X-Rays, the images are three dimensional, full colour and viewable from any direction and at any zoom level (down to the sub-atomic), and that you've never been wrong.
This still holds.
Despite this incredible abilty, the list of things that you're unsure of detecting has grown with every post. It appears that the study must continue until every possiblle "ailment" has been added to the list before you will admit to having no ability at all.
Not at all. The study will reveal what I can detect. Just be patient.
Have you made any progress with eliminating the fairly commonly held view that you're delusional? It would be an easy step, and would reduce your workload here considerably.
The perceptions represent accurate health information. But what is the source of the information?
Again and again you refer to this nonsense as being critical to your various studies and tests. It isn't. What's critical is your total lack of any evidence whatsoever that you have any kind of ability.
How dare you! My main concern with the study design was that volunteers would have to reveal their personal health information, and that this would have possible moral and legal concerns. UncaYimmy designed a study protocol that works around this problem, and it is absolutely not NONSENSE! And it is absolutely critical to everything I am doing here! How ridiculous of you! Lack of evidence is taken care of in the Upcoming Study
TM with the Upcoming Evidence
TM.
I didn't say it was wrong, per se, but that it was unwise. If you need to adopt a mentor (typically reversed VfF behaviour), you need to pick someone who believes in you and supports your ambitions. I just wonder if you've chosen wisely.
I'm not here to pick favorites! If UncaYimmy shares material that is useful in this investigation then I can take advantage of that regardless of what I think of him as a person! His ideas were
excellent! Everything I do is wrong, even when I do the right things by taking someone's useful suggestions and using it to progress...
This is an emotional appeal made to people who don't judge arguments with their emotions. The conclusions reached so far in this thread, apart from your own, have been arrived at logically and will affect no-one's happiness.
I don't mind being happy.
I can, but many people don't, won't or can't read flash documents. Post it somewhere in HTML, ASCII or even Microsoft Word format.
I was not aware of that problem.
One of the new members did however volunteer and I did have the opportunity to attempt medical perceptions with him, the details of which can be found on the observations page www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html 
