Vision From Feeling

[JWideman]

Ocelot, I only understood every fifth word. Could we have a summarized version of that?

 

[AliasN]

JWideman, I agree. I refer you to my sig line.

 

[Ocelot]

Summary - you can't infer a trend from just 18 binary data points. Thus tiredness which would be indicated by a downward trend cannot be inferred from the data. We can take Anita's word that she was fatigued, however the effect on her acuracy was not statistically significant.

Likewise CSICOP's similar experiment recreating the conditions of Sheldrakes apparently sucessful staring test, with feedback, showed a gradual increase in accuracy over the course of ten times as many trials. The lack of a slight upward tend in our data is again not statistically significant over just 18 datapoints.

No reliable conclusion can be drawn from the trends. Thus the possibility of knowing how the shuffler was deciding to move the target, cannot be dissmissed.

However if the first time Anita became aware of the position of the target were after trails 1, such a strategy wouldn't assist her for that first prediction. If no other factors were assisting her first prediction and only thereafter she had an advantage, this would introduce a slight upward bias as the first point would tend to be lower than all the rest. In this case, despite the bias toward a slight upward trend, a downward trend of the sort seen in Anita's data wouldn't be totally improbable.

If the advantage from knowing previous moves were only in full effect once there were two previous moves to work from then the downward trend seen in Anita's data would be far more suprising. We can infer that only the target position immediately prior to the shufflers choice was relevant in their decission as to where to place the cup.

Such an infference is dependent on there being no other factors assisting Anita and Anita not already knowing where the target was before the first shuffle.

 

[alfaniner]

When I was in college, I had a want-to-be-boyfriend who took me to a religious service with him. Partway through the service, I started singing along with one song, though I had (and have) no memory of having heard it before that night. There are several possible explanations: I could have been psychically picking it out of the minds of people around me; I could have been Jewish in a previous life, and having memories from that incarnation; or, I could have at some time heard it enough to learn part of it, and then not remembered the experience. My money is on Option 3, since it's one that fits well into normal human cognition.

I had a similar experience when playing my first rounds of Karaoke Revolution (a sing-along video game). I know that I had never heard some of the songs on there (country music, ugh) but within a few short lines I was able to pick up on the chord progressions which followed through the rest of the song. I thought it was pretty cool at the time, but there are many standard chord changes in music which makes much of it pleasurable to listen to, as you can anticipate what's coming next.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

From her website

In my vision, nitrogen is neon green, phosphorus deep blue, potassium light blue, hydrogen red. Carbon is black, argon is a kind of purple-red, calcium is a light blue (different shade of light blue than that of potassium).

Must be very hard to see things since air^WP is about 78% nitrogen.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

From her website



Must be very hard to see things since air^WP is about 78% nitrogen.

Nitrogen? 78%? Green?

Just like I predicted in my earlier Wizard of Oz references. Do I win anything?

Oh. And any test and/or results yet?

(Just checking in.)

 

[Hokulele]

Oh. And any test and/or results yet?

(Just checking in.)

Yep. The previous page has a decent summary and the start of several analyses. If VFF can get similar results with a test that has much better controls, it would definitely be worth a second (and third) look.

 

[JWideman]

From her website



Must be very hard to see things since air^WP is about 78% nitrogen.

Ah, but she only sees things that aren't normal. Having nitrogen in it is normal for air, just as having lactobacillus is normal in it for yogurt. I'm still looking for the animal that produces yogurt. For some reason I thought yogurt was milk that had lactobacillus added to it, but apparently yogurt is naturally occurring.

 

[Beth]

The learning effect is supported not by the trend but by the high proportion of correct guesses.

I'll have to disagree with this. A learning effect is essentially a trend of improvement over time. The high proportion of correct guesses at the onset is indicative of ability, not learning.

Either Anita has a genuine paranormal ability or one or more of the effects I mentioned are in play.

Again, I have to disagree. There are other possiblities, some of which have already been discussed in this thread.

You've written a lengthy response and I'm going to have to cut a bit of it. My apologies if I fail to address a point you consider important. Feel free to bring it up again it that happens.

I have great doubts that such an increase due to learning would be significantly apparent over a mere 18 trials.

Here we agree.

I don't believe that the slight downward trend is significant enough in magnitude to actually require explanation.

Again, we are in agreement here. It doesn't require an explanation. I am merely noting that the data is consistent with her claim of fatigue and therefore supports it, albeit weakly. At something like a p-value of approximately 0.1 according to your simulation. What do you think would be the p-value of the data with a learning effect hypothesis such as you've outlined? I afraid that I'd want to know the p-value for that starting at a reasonable probability of success (say 50% assuming the previous one was not used or picked)? Started at 72% to test for a fatigue effect makes sense only if we presume she has some ability and that is a reasonable approximately of her accuracy. To test for a learning effect, we'd need to check how well the data match that assumption starting with a more realistic expectation of success. I suspect that a goodness of fit test under those assumptions could easily lead to a rejection of the hypothesis. If I blow off some work I need to do this week-end, I could try to pull an analysis of that together, but I really need to work instead so don't count on it.

While conclusions are not forthcomimg, is the comparison of the approximately p-value of the different hypothesis not of use in this situation?

I've performed a little excel experiment to prove this. Plotting x = trial number against y= 1 for a hit, 0 for a miss, we can fit a line to those points using the least squares method. The gradient of that line gives us a magnitude for the downward trend. For Anita's data this gradient is -0.0258

I then generated a random list of hits and misses. Based on Anita's success rate, each point in the sequence has a 72% chance of being a hit. No underlying trend was programmed in. The first trial had the same chance of being a hit as the last trial. I then did the same line fitting and noted the gradient. Through the power of macros I repeated this 1000 times. The average gradient, as you'd expect was pretty close to zero - horizontal. (0.0002312) the gradients varied between -0.068111455 and 0.080495356 a standard deviation of 0.020336. We got downward trends steeper than those from Anita's data 107 times (10.7% of the time) and upward trends of greater magnitude 88 times (8.8% of the time)

What this means is that if we expected no discernable change in accuracy over time then getting a result showing a downward trend more extreme than Anita's would not be a great suprise.

Yes, a p-value of approximately .107 is not usually considered statistically significant.

I tried programming it to have a falling accuracy rate as suggested by Anita's data with the accuracy rate for trial 1 starting at 94% and dropping linearly to 50% by trial 18.

My, you've put a lot of work into this. I presume you must enjoy it I do too!

Either way although the results are indeed indeed slightly more consistent with a fatigue hypothesis than a learning hypothesis, it is not by a statistically significant amount.

That's all I was saying. I didn't claim it was a statistically significant effect. We are not in disagreement here.

The results, even if we arbitarily dissmiss the possibility of fatigue being a factor in Anita's accuracy are still not inconsistent with the hypothesis that Anita was learning from immediate feedback.

Okay, I'll agree that feedback can change the odds significantly from random chance. But I also know from personal experience that attempting such feats can be quite debilitating, quite surprisingly so. Thus, I have other data that I am aware of that you would not be. Thus I find her claim and performance record quite consistent with the hypothesis of fatigue. This hypothesis BTW does not support any type of paranormal claim. Such fatigue can occur after any intensely focused mental exercise.

When we consider there is no need for a dichotomy here and that both these and the other factors previously mentioned may have had simultaneous effects there is even less reason to dissmiss the possibility of learning.

Okay. It certainly is possible and can't be dismissed. But it isn't better supported by her data just yet that the fatigue hypothesis is.

Summary - you can't infer a trend from just 18 binary data points. Thus tiredness which would be indicated by a downward trend cannot be inferred from the data. We can take Anita's word that she was fatigued, however the effect on her acuracy was not statistically significant.

No reliable conclusion can be drawn from the trends. Thus the possibility of knowing how the shuffler was deciding to move the target, cannot be dissmissed.

We agree. The best that this test could hope to provide was a resounding negative that would allow us to reject the possibility that something unusual was occurring. We cannot do that. The data she provided, for a test run at the request of this forum and conducted using suggestions that were provided by this forum. It would be nice if the skeptics on this forum were to, for instance, thank her for making the effort and sharing her results with them and accept that her results are completely consistent that the hypothesis that she is able, in some way, to sense the presence or absence of some living organism in the cereal.

I sincerely hope she will take the time to conduct and post about further experiments on her ability. The protocol suggested a bit early was excellent, though I would suggest an checking the containers unblinded first, to make sure that you are able to distinguish between them when you know which is which. If you choose to do so, I would like very much to hear about them.

If I were her, and I was sincerely interested in exploring what I was apparently perceiving, I would find the reactions she has received on this forum to be discouraging.

VFF, I'd like to say thank you very much for your postings. I know that what you are doing is not easy to do. I've enjoyed reading this thread and learning about you and your unusual perceptiveness. Please PM me if you'd like to start a private conversation.

Beth

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
Of course I get enjoyment from my ability. Who wouldn't enjoy seeing bright neon green atoms and knowing that there is Nitrogen there, looking at the beautiful structures of human muscle, organs, and other tissue, and experiencing insight into people and the physical world.

As previously discussed that is currently your belief. It is not accepted as such at the moment by anyone but you. Testing will discover the reality.

So far every observation has been correct. (ETA: ... that has been checked, that is.) Whether it is the case of actual, real-life observations, or an active automatic imagination, or a subconscious use of normal senses, what ever it is it is what I see and it is wonderful.

It could also be some visual procesing problem you have, or as you mention, imagination.
If it still gives you joy even if it is not in reality showing the information you believe it to be then fair enough.

Well, I am here because I am arranging to have a test with the IIG and these kind of things attract a lot of attention. I thought I would discuss the ability and the protocol with you people and also I wanted to introduce myself before people start talking about me.

Again we look forward to the results of the tests.

Whether my ability is ESP or synesthesia I will continue to build my website, I think it is fascinating no matter what it turns out to be. I do think that my ability is interesting, I am just not quite as excited about it as you say I should be.

I'm afriad that does not come across in your posting.
Also if you were genuinely non-committal about your 'ability' you wouldn't really care much one way or the other whether it turned out to be real or not. But you describe yourself as 'enjoying' it, you find it 'interesting' 'fascinating' and below you simply say 'I do perceive information that others don't and can't.'
There is little to no room in your posts to allow for the possibility for error. This is not the attitude of someone who is not excited about a possible ability.
And as mentioned repeatedly, it would be incredibly bizarre to not b excited about potentially having what is to all intents and purposes a superpower.

So you can continue to claim the (usual) stance of not really caring about such an ability but I'm afraid I for one simply do not believe you. It is clear this ability is important to you ( I do believe you believe you have this ability) and I question whether you will be comfortable with negative results should they be the result.

I do perceive information that others don't and can't.

We are aware that is your claim. We have seen an identical claim made many, many times. It has so far never been demonstrated to be a real claim.
Maybe you will be the first.
Our knowledge and history of these matters indicates this is unlikely.

The strength of my personal belief is what would explain why I have chosen to undergo the test of my ability. I have always understood that my past experiences with this ability are not evidence. Evidence for or against can be obtained from having a test. My test will not be open to interpretation. I will have the test on medical information since that is the main part of my ability.

Okay. I look forward to seeing the test results and hope there are no issues with the protocol. There shouldn't be with an ability that has so far been 100%.

The other aspects of the ability occur less frequently.

Which is a shame as they would be particularly easy to test and, in my opinion, would yield much clearer and definitive results than a test involving medical conditions in humans.

I have no emotions invested in my ability.

I think we are going to have to leave this point as I don't believe you and your repeated assertations are doing nothing to convince me otherwise (nor are the rest of your posts).

Whether I pass or fail the test the ability remains the same, that is, I continue to have the same observations but would probably know what the origin of those observations are.

A fail would not necessarily tell you what is causing the visual experiences - all it would do is inform you that it wsn't indicating paranormal ability.
It could still be imagination, a condition of some sort, an unusual processing error etc.

I have the ability of perceiving information that other people do not and can not perceive. The question is only whether that information comes from ESP or from down-to-earth causes such as synesthesia.

But that would NOT be perceiving information others do not. Synesthesia is a confusing of perceptions - you are not gaining information others could not see, you are simply interpreting it in a different way.

The test is to see if you are somehow gaining information others could not, which would constitute a paranormal ability. A fail would demonstrate you are not gaining any information unseen to others.

Having a vivid imagination is not a paranormal ability (although it is often confused with one).

In either case which ever it may be, the ability and the information continues to come to me.

Again you are sort of interchanging 'the ability' and your 'imagination'. The test is solely to see if there is a real paranormal ability there.
No-one is questioning your ability to imagine things. I can look at people and imagine they have certain ailments - that is not a unique ability. Being correct under testing is the unique ability.

Nothing changes in my world. If I make a considerable amount of incorrect observations on the test, then I will learn that the accuracy is not perfect after all.

If you make no correct observations above chance it will indicate that there is no ability, not that 'the accuracy is not perfect after all'.

I am quite open for the possibility.

You do not at all appear open to the possibility that you do not have a paranormal ability. You simply seem a little open to the possibility that your ability (which you appear to be assuming is already a given) might be a little less accurate than you thought. But still present.

Maybe I am misreading this.

I will ask the question bluntly - if your results from the test were not above chance, would you agree that this might indicate that you have no actual paranormal ability? That you are not gaining real information that is unseen to others?

(And just for clarification I am not asking whether you still might be seeing unusual colours or sensations for some reason, just that these are not in reality giving you any meaningful information, as you currenlty believe)

Let's just see what the test will reveal. It will not bother me if I fail the test, since I get to keep my ability, that is, the observations in exactly the same way as before, but with understanding of what causes those observations. I could not favor ESP over synesthesia, both are fascinating. I would not ignore test results. I am choosing to have the test to find out those test results.

And by 'synesthesia' are you understanding that it does not actually involve extra information being perceived? It is an unusual crossing over of perceptions?

The understanding I obtain from my ability adds creative thinking to chemistry, physics, and medicine.

In what way? What does a synesthesia-type experience add to research? Can you provide an example where this might be of use?

The observations I make are inspiration and ideas that I can test as a scientist if they are interesting enough.

Such as?
Dropping acid before conducting and experiment may add several new exciting layers of perceptual and imaginative experience to the event. But what useful information or thought would this add?

Every chemistry student has failed chemistry experiments, it is a fact and part of the learning process. We learn not to take it personally. We learn to analyze our experimental set-up and look for the source of error, and we learn what the problem was and suggest how to do better next time. A student can earn an A even if they fail an experiment.

Hopefully they would not earn an 'A' if the failure was due to their own experimental error.
What do you mean by 'failure'? Do you mean they had a hypothesis and a well carried out experiment demonstrated their hypothesis was incorrect? That isn't a 'failure'.
How is that analogous to your situation? It would only be similar if the student then refused to accept the result and still believed the hypothesis was correct just in a different way not in any way indicated by the experiment.

The results of an experiment are not to be taken personally, even if the scientist was the cause of them.

I don't understand that sentence.

I have a 4.0 GPA (ie. all A's) studying a B.S. Chemistry and a B.S. Physics so you don't have to worry about my scientific background. However my professional life is not part of this inquiry into my perceived ability, and my university has no affiliation to this. I do have some scientific background but have not studied statistics yet. I am an undergraduate student.

So we don't need to worry about your 'scientific background', but you are an undergraduate with only 'some scientific background' and you haven't even studied statistics yet?
This would indicate (to those of us who have already completed scientific degrees) that you cannot be very far into the course if you have not yet had to even statistically analyse any experiments you or others have carried out.

This does mean you are not as experienced in experimental design or analysis as many people here.
For you to be talking about what your ability (even if it not real) may add to experimental procedure is incredibly premature when you sound like you have not yet actually designed, run and analysed a full experiment of your own.

Still as you say yourself, your own knowledge of scientific analysis isn't relevant to whether you can actually demonstrate your claimed ability.
I'm sure IIG will be able to take you through the levels of results and what they will indicate. These wil have to be agreed before the experiment will happen.

I have no need of being considered special due to this ability. I find other ways of making my life meaningful. Of course objective testing has been lacking in my results, I have only recently decided to have objective tests.

Again the importance of that is not to be understated. Actually being prepared to go through objective testing with an independent organisation is a very big step and you are to be commended for going through with it.

And again I wish you success - you may claim not to be excited by this, but if it turned out to be real it would be very exciting to many people, myself included.

 

[Moochie]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

You've picked up on it too. There are some parts of her "protestations" that definitely jar. But let's see what happens. I'm no Einstein, but I clued on to The Professor well before many others did. Unfortunately, there are still those who regard TP as real.


M.

 

[Moochie]

I think what we're seeing is someone who is truly examining her abilities for the first time and being questioned by people who don't believe her. She's being shown her inconsistencies and the unreliability of what little testing she has done. And since the ability isn't real (sorry, Anita), there's no doubt that the more she talks about it, the more troublesome it becomes for her.

You could be right. It could be a ruse. But if there's any deception, I believe it's self-deception.

Yeah, you could be right. I just have the sense of someone, I don't know, someone who's been through this before, maybe here. There are echoes. Hey, maybe I'm clairvoyant!


M.

 

[JWideman]

Ashles, just a note: the more that Anita's described her observations, the more clear it's become that it's not synesthesia.
Self-induced hallucination is much more likely.

 

[Moochie]

Ashles, just a note: the more that Anita's described her observations, the more clear it's become that it's not synesthesia.
Self-induced hallucination is much more likely.

Oh, I doubt it. The impression I get is of yet another "guesser." There've been quite a few. Most don't even get to the preliminary once it dawns on them that the MDC isn't a crap shoot. "Anita's" just more articulate. I have serious reservations about her identity. As ever, I'll believe it when I see the evidence.


M.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles, just a note: the more that Anita's described her observations, the more clear it's become that it's not synesthesia.
Self-induced hallucination is much more likely.

I agree, but I was trying to address specificall her posts to me.

It would take too much time to address all the potential subjects o this thread.

For example I don't think the protocol is watertight - it certainly allows for other methods of information transmission (whether deliberate or not). 10 minutes is a long time to be allowed to watch someone (and she is requesting the ability to move time from one to another if required - this is especially a problem if she is going to ditch some quickly as unreadable and then allow herself a long time to watch some subjects. If they have any pain or discomfort this is going to be fairly easy to identify. Watching someone with, for example, back pain for at least ten minutes is going to be so uncomfortable they will probably fidget in a way that would make it easier to pick up on).
Even being conscious of being watched may make them unconsciously indicate their condition.

And VfF's requests appear strange - it must be current pain, the only physical changes have to be at a level they would be visibible to anyone (or at least potentially so)... missing arms allowed but replaced joints not?
It just doesn't fit in with the strength and consistency of ability she is claiming.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
I will keep improving on the cereal test procedure. Rather than moving just one or a few of the cups involved, all cups are going to be moved (but not necessarily to a different position in the row, some maybe just turned the other way around) for each new run. The idea of using a die is perfect, and will be implemented as soon as we get one (possibly for the next weekend). Finding out all the answers only at the very end of the test is something I will have to get used to, but it is definitely a good idea and necessary for the test. Going from what my everyday experiences are and conforming to testing conditions is a little transition in some respects, but I am happy and all for it. Yes we need to keep eliminating any possible ways of detecting the right cup through ordinary skills, thank you for all your good suggestions, I will put them to good use. You see, a MDC is not the place to find out that one does not have an ability after all!

She started with the IIG like 8 months ago.

I started with the IIG like 16 months ago.

And since the ability isn't real (sorry, Anita), there's no doubt that the more she talks about it, the more troublesome it becomes for her.

I've made some interesting observations that compel me to have the test. Let's just see and find out. We don't know whether the ability is real or not yet, just hang in there and let's wait for the official tests with the IIG, and in the meantime I am arranging other tests as I can. I don't think that talking about it becomes troublesome, I'm just curious about discussing this with other people to figure out what it is. No trouble here.

Miss Kitt:

My concern here is that VFF is simply picking up on minor visual or olfactory clues

I will be at a distance from the persons and there will be glass between us and I do not think I'd be picking up olfactory clues. All persons who are available for the test have been approved of by the testing organization as having ailments that are not detectable by ordinary means. If 10 out of a total of 20 persons for the test have ailments that can be detected visually or by other ordinary senses then already the test would be flawed even if I weren't allowed to pick my best 10. Even if I had to make an observation for all the 20, the 10 should be considered flawed. There may not be any subjects for the test whose ailments could be detectable in this way, so me selecting 10 out of 20 should not reduce the reliability of the test.

In the most convincing cases of having detected very specific health problems, I had no way of knowing prior about their condition. It is difficult or impossible for me to convince you of my past experiences, but if I make similar very good observations on the test with the IIG, then it would be an experience that we could share.

When I detected H. pylori in a relative I was very young and to my recollection had not encountered it in the media, yet I could be wrong about that like you said. Let's just see what the test results say. My past experiences are not evidence for you, but they explain why I am personally compelled to have this test.

Yes I am open to the possibility that I'd be using a memory storage of information to piece together the conclusions I make, but still it leaves many observations that I can not dismiss as examples of this.

To mention a few very specific cases, I had no knowledge of the co-workers reproductive cysts since I detected them before they were diagnosed. And I detected the Lactobacillus in a friend's stomach before he had mentioned it to me, and I should know because we had just become good friends and I remembered very well each of the few talks we had had up until then and he had never mentioned anything about taking that supplement. As for describing in perfect detail the brown shape in a person's field of vision, it had also never been mentioned to me, since it is personal information. There are many cases that I can not dismiss, and also I do not present them as evidence to others. But they compel me to have the test.

I agree with what you say, though, and they are very interesting and valuable comments. Good to have you here. I am not interested in self-deception, believe it or not.

JWideman:
I prefer to let statistics tell whether I am performing well on the cereal test or not, yet still allowing myself a few incorrect answers since statistics does. Well, even if you missed seeing a person behind a door three times, if you had maybe 30 correct answers then you might be interested in continuing to see if statistics suggests some kind of ability? Most abilities, whether psychic or otherwise, are not required to have a 100% accuracy at all times in order to be considered valid. I am still more interested in the medical information test since it is my strength among the many aspects of this ability.

I do not "guess" when I make ""psychic observations"". I only claim to know where the cereal is, or claim to feel a person's pain or describe their illness, when I perceive that I am actually observing something. At times when I just don't know, I do not guess. We will be using methods that randomize the placement of the correct answer from now on so that I could not learn a pattern if one exists and so that no strategy could be constructed to increase a chance of success from guessing. Even though I am not guessing.

I'm still looking for the animal that produces yogurt. For some reason I thought yogurt was milk that had lactobacillus added to it, but apparently yogurt is naturally occurring.

"Not normal" as in not usual. It may be added to yoghurt, but that's how it always looks. Nothing unusual or out of the ordinary there.

the more that Anita's described her observations, the more clear it's become that it's not synesthesia.
Self-induced hallucination is much more likely.

Well if that's what it is, what ever it is, I am still interested since it leads to interesting and accurate observations and I look forward to seeing what the test results say. I am not biased to favor one explanation over the other. I want to see if I can produce consistent accurate information to a statistically significant degree during a controlled test environment, and am also curious to find the true origin of the observations.

Beth:
Thank you Beth for the statistical analysis. I was waiting for someone to help us with that. Although a probability of 0.0008526 for 13 out of 18 trials with 1/3 having the right cup sounds good, I believe that 18 trials is very low and a larger total number of trials would be more reliable to draw conclusions on.

I will make no explanations or conclusions on these cereal tests just yet. I'm glad you enjoy the statistics. I wouldn't know where to start, I'm glad to rely on you others to do this part of the work.

Thank you Beth for your encouraging and kind words.

Ocelot:
I had to quit after 18 trials since as always when I do a chemical detection test I gradually start to feel very (very) bad. I get nausea and a headache (and normally I have neither) and focusing on anything becomes unbearable. Had I been able to, I would have continued to at least a total of 20 trials as was my goal since I do not believe that 18 trials is many enough to make any kind of conclusion on. I didn't try to quit at the "right time", I just had to quit when I could do it no longer.

I've actually made no other conclusion from the first cereal test other than to continue with tests. I seriously don't think that 18 trials is good enough, and the test procedure needs to be improved on as much as possible. I just did that first quick and easy test to see what the results would be. Yes, I will definitely allow myself a break once I start to feel bad. I have to. The quality of a test should not be affected if there are breaks in between sections of the test. Ten at a time sounds perfect.

Goodness you are good at statistical analysis, thank you for your work and for sharing the results here.

Yes better randomizing is required, and no immediate feedback is to be allowed (even if it takes the fun during the test from me). No I do not have the sequence of positions available, but at later tests I will be sure to note that.

From where I was standing on the first cereal test my toes were three feet five inches from the row of cups. (Yes, I went back and measured very carefully.) That is 104 centimeters (for you Europeans and Canadians). I am also concerned with that the cups weren't covered. I didn't have much time to arrange the first test since I had to leave soon after. Cups being subtly distinguishable from one another is also a concern that is addressed in the next test that I had today, by changing cups between trials. I don't think nine attempts should be good enough for any official test.

Thank you Ocelot, your comments and ideas are excellent and will be implemented. I am going to rigorously test myself before applying for any official test on chemical identification. I'd want to make very sure I could perform just as well on a "real" test as I do at home.

I did not know where the target was for the first trial. (Until I checked it with my ability!)

EHocking:
Thank you for your statistical analysis of the results of the first cereal test. Sounds like I got rather close to a passing score, however I still don't believe that 18 trials would ever be good enough.

SoapySam:
I resent any kind of discussion on whether I think I am special or not. I am here because I have made some very unusual observations and being science-minded I simply want to test to find out what the true origin of this information is. I am convinced that there is a reason to test this because of the quality of some of the observations, and not because I'd be prone to one explanation over another.

I absolutely do not consciously try to deceive others. That would be an immoral thing to do and a total waste of time. I am compelled to have this test because of the quality of observations and do not see how I would have deceived myself. Please stop making rude assumptions about my character or personality and just consider that I might just be a truly honest type of person.

There has not been any contradictory evidence so far! If there had been I would accept it!! I am here because I've made interesting observations. I do not believe it is ESP or synesthesia either way, and if a test result reveals that I am convinced of the authenticity of observations that turn out to be incorrect I will have no trouble accepting it. Stop making ridiculous assumptions. I am not trying to be unique.

Honestly, some of you people are just ridiculous. Stop making personal attacks against me and making accusations about my character that just aren't true. I am being very objective and open-minded about this and I hope that most of you do the same.

Old man:
Very good idea to place cereal samples into sealed envelopes. I will probably try it later on.

Hokulele:
Personal choice randomization will be eliminated in later tests and so will instant feedback (even if it takes the fun out of the test for me).

Moochie:

Having taken a more comprehensive look at VFF's site, and having read every post in this thread up to now, I'm beginning to feel that I'm being had.

Well I'm sad to hear that since I am trying to be as honest and sincere as I possibly can. I realize that there's a lot of talk and little evidence at this point so please come back at least after the official test results from the IIG become available. Just hang in there, there is no deception going on and let's see what the test results say!

I don't have any "special gifts" that I am aware of. If I did have one, I'd be sure to exploit it for monetary gain. At my age, I'm beginning to think life's too short to try to disabuse everyone of their belief in what is essentially horse manure.

The "special gift" that I have that I will exploit for monetary gain is my success in college and career-wise. I have no belief in whether I have ESP or synesthesia or something else, I just know I've made some interesting observations and I'm open to what ever the test results will suggest is the explanation. There is no belief at this point, just the observations.

The impression I get is of yet another "guesser." There've been quite a few. Most don't even get to the preliminary once it dawns on them that the MDC isn't a crap shoot. "Anita's" just more articulate. I have serious reservations about her identity. As ever, I'll believe it when I see the evidence.

I am not a guesser. When I take the cereal tests (and I've had a total of two so far), I make sure that I am under the impression of actually sensing the vibration, or light, of the bacteria, before I state an answer. At some trials I honestly say that I can not detect it (the reasons of which I will state in a later post where I present the results of the second cereal test) and I ask for a re-shuffle (which may or may not shuffle all the cups or just some or them). I make very very certain that I actually have a perceived claim of sensing something before I give an answer. If it's between two cups and I'm not sure which one it is, I tell my friend who helps me with the test, that "I just don't feel where it is this time, and I am not going to guess." I never ever guess. And some of the medical information I've detected just could not be guessed! Let's just see the test results, alright? I really have had some interesting observations here and I haven't been guessing. I really feel as if I perceive some information. Now whether that information comes from the real world or is just something I perceive in my mind is what the tests will help to find out. None of us can at this point speculate (and rather aggressively as some of you do here ) which of these it is.

Please guys, stop the hostilities or I will feel bad about coming to my thread, and might stop coming here at all. I really wanted to discuss test results and test protocols with you people, rather than having my personality attacked!

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Little 10 Toes:

Must be very hard to see things since air is about 78% nitrogen.

With all the information all around, it is the interesting data that usually stands out and catches my attention. For instance, Nitrogen in the unexpected places such as in an unknown molecule where I wouldn't know what to expect, or Lactobacillus in cereal rather than in yoghurt and dairy. It is like being surrounded by a lot of text, but text that has been highlighted with a marker stands out and catches your attention more than the rest. Some things stand out more than others.

Ashles:
I enjoy my ability yes, I enjoy the things that I perceive. However that does not make it have to be true ESP or imagination or anything else, I enjoy the observations what ever they are. Of course I allow for error, I welcome it and would not be upset if it shows up in tests. You can interpret my emotions any way you want, all I can do is tell you how I feel. I still think that my emotions are not the subject of scrutiny here. And seriously, if I have this "superpower" it is one that I am used to and do not get really excited about. It's just a normal day in my life. And I've had it for many years now.

I can not care about having ESP since I could find out that I do not have ESP. I do not want to get accustomed to any explanation one way or the other in case it'd be taken away from me after the test, also I do not want self-deception by believing it to be a "superpower" when it might not be after all. I just have the observations and those will never be taken away. If a test adds incorrect observations to my so far 100% correct observations so be it. Nothing changes in my world.

It's hard to believe until I have presented some form of evidence. I would be very comfortable with negative test results, because I get to keep the ability, that is, the observations, in the exact same way as before, but the label would not be ESP. The label would be perhaps synesthesia, or imagination, or a creative mind, or skillful at reading external signs. Either way I get to keep the ability. Ability = the observations.

Yes chemical identification tests would be much easier for test-arrangement purposes, and I am working on having those while I am waiting to have the official medical information test. If their results are compelling I can have an official chemical identification test as well. I don't know at this point, looks good so far!

Please don't refer to my ability as possibly being an "unusual processing error". It leads to very useful scientific hypotheses that I can use in my career and it has lead to very many interesting accurate observations. I don't think of it as an error in any way. Even if tests would present several incorrect claims of observations, I'd still not think negatively of it. If it is synesthesia, synesthesia is not considered a mental problem in any way, it is an acceptable form of perception that some people have and many more people have it to lesser extent. It is a form of creative thinking.

Vivid imagination is among the explanations I will consider if I fail the test. Of course such is not a paranormal ability, it is among the null hypotheses.

I am fully open to the possibility that I do not have a paranormal ability. But all I have so far to refer to are 100% accurate, very unusual and specific descriptions of things that can not be perceived by ordinary people. I do not take these as any form of conclusion of having or not having ESP or anything else, that is what the tests are for. Of course I will accept an explanation that I do not have a paranormal ability! That is why I am having the tests! I am not biased toward one explanation over the other! For the last time!! Because in either case I get to keep the ability, I get to keep the fascinating observations! Whether they turn out to be always true or not when tested!

Yes, synesthesia translates one type of information into the others. It is how I can see inside the human body, taste sunshine, etc. I am just curious since I make interesting observations that are accurate.

What do my observations add to research? By doing what I described in an earlier post and call "vibrational algebra" I can suggest the new design of molecular structures of medicines for specific purposes. But most importantly I will use this to design light structures that have specific and detailed effects on human tissue structure in medicine. It has not been done yet and without this "creatitivy" or "insight" (which ever it may be) this would be a complicated task to start from only using logic. I can then apply my full scientific professionalism to these ideas and am at no risk of wasting time or resources on any of them. I can also "feel" how chemicals respond to temperature, pressure, etc, by feeling the vibrational aspect of a chemical and applying in my mind the vibrational aspect of heat, or pressure, or anything else to it, and predict the outcome.

When I said that the results of an experiment aren't to be taken personally, I mean that in some cases a scientist shouldn't apply their personal emotions on their scientific work. They shouldn't become emotionally angry, or sad, when experiments fail. It is part of professionalism. And in the same way I do not apply any emotions to this ability that I am now having tested. Because if I fail there is no reason to be upset since what I am most interested in is the actual, true results. To me a successful test is one that succeeds in finding out the truth. The test is not about "passing". The test is about "finding out what the ability is". Please don't argue since this is how I really feel about the situation. Stop being silly and arguing about how I feel about things. Let me be entitled to my emotions.

I don't have to study statistics to get my degrees although it is highly recommended as an elective. I will probably catch up on statistics on the Masters level later on. Doing two B.S. and a minor means I have to choose away a few good courses that would strengthen either one. I take my studies seriously though and will catch up on courses later on and take several useful electives, including many math electives. But at this point I am grateful to have others on this Forum, such as Ocelot and Beth, to do the statistical analysis as they have. I do apply statistical analysis in college but not of the form as is done here. This is not a chemistry experiment.

I am here to get assistance in experimental design. I never intended to do all this on my own.

That's a good point that I shouldn't be given transferrable time with subjects that I decline. Their 10 minutes should not be transferrable toward the others that I do diagnose. I am all for it. I really want a good reliable protocol and this is something that adds to that.

I'm hoping that there is plenty of pain that is not detectable. For instance we could have other practice people look at the persons before my test, for 10 (or more) minutes and try to find their pain to reduce this concern.

I could probably detect slighter ailments such as missing fingers etc but I am suggesting ailments that are easier for me so that there will be fewer passed subjects. Provided that all ailments and people provided for the test are undetectable by ordinary means.

 

[JWideman]

As has been brought up before, you're seeing stuff and being told what ailment the person has, and assuming a relationship. And again, the lactobacillus is the perfect example. If you were seeing lactobacillus where it was present, you'd never see it where it wasn't, right? But you did in that cereal test. You were sure enough you saw it that you don't believe you were guessing. And you were wrong. So the logical conclusion is that what you saw was not lactobacillus. That you saw the same phenomenon with your friend as with the cereal is what we call coincidence.

 

[Madalch]

Anita- can you see the auras of chemicals through paper?

If I were to send you a letter which contained a piece of cardboard, upon which I had dripped solutions containing simple chemicals such as sodium chloride, potassium bromide, lithium sulphate, etc, would you be able to tell me which drops were which without opening the envelope?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Cereal Test #2

Today, Sunday November 16 2008 I had the second cereal test. Several variations of the test procedure were tried before one was found that I was comfortable with. C = Correct trial, F = Failed trial

Test procedure 1
The first test procedure tried had a total of five samples. Each sample was placed in identical paper cups. Paper cups were two in one to make a thicker wall and reduce any visibility through the cup. All cups had the same height of contents and were less than half-full. Four of the samples were plain cereal flakes, one of the samples was the same type of plain cereal flakes but with Lactobacillus supplement and was the one to be detected. The bacterial supplement was placed in the center and surrounded and covered with cereal to better conceal it just in case. Identical white paper post-its were placed on top of each cup as a cover. (Crude, but the best I could find without going shopping.) The assistant would shuffle the paper covers as well at each shuffle of the cups just in case they'd be slightly different from each other (which they were). I sat at a distance of seven feet (213 centimeters) from my toes to the row of cups. Personal randomization by the assistant determined the placement of the cups. Feedback was provided after each individual trial rather than at the end of the entire test. (These last two conditions will be eliminated in later tests.)

Results: Very bad. I felt nothing. I made two forced attempts although I hate to guess when I don't feel the answer and both were incorrect.
1) F
2) F
Comments: Were five cups too many? Or did the paper cover stop what ever radiative information is emitted from the bacteria? Or both? (Paper blocks some types of low-energy radiation.)

Test procedure 2
Procedure as earlier but no paper covers.

Results:
1) F
Comments: Am I overwhelmed by the five cups?

Test procedure 3
Procedure as earlier but no paper covers and with a total of 4 samples, one of which has the bacterial supplement.

Results:
1) F
2) F
Comments: Were four cups also too many and overwhelming? Since I have to try to feel all of them. My strategy has so far actually been to "find the heavy vibrations of plain cereal-cups and eliminate those, and then figure out which one is the supplement one". (I don't know why but that is how I had come to do these tests.)

Test procedure 4
Procedure as earlier, no covers and with a total of 4 cups. I gently wet the bacterial supplement with one drop of warm tap water thinking that it might activate the bacteria. I have not done this before and wanted to try to see if it might have any effect, and yes it did! We carefully made sure that no moisture was detectable on the cup. The drop was absorbed in the center of the contents without contact with walls or bottom of the cup.

Results: It was VERY easy to detect the bacteria! I felt it stronger than ever before. (ETA: And this is a claim I would make regardless of if the results would have confirmed a correct prediction or an incorrect prediction.) I had to giggle a bit because in my perception I saw movement that is similar to how an inchworm crawls and expands to move about, it was absolutely adorable. Initially they were absolutely easy to detect and I was totally certain.
1) C
2) C
3) F
4) F
Comments: In the first two trials I was absolutely certain. In trial 2 I said to my assistant that I am so certain that the bacteria is in that cup that I would bet all I have on it and that if it is not in that cup then I will declare myself crazy. In trial 3 I didn't know. (See comments below.)

Test procedure 5
Procedure as earlier, no covers, but a total of three cups, one with the bacterial supplement which has been wetted with a drop of warm water.

Results:
1) C
2) C
3) C
4) F
5) C
6) C
7) C
8) C
9) C
10) C
11) F
12) F
Comments: Starting with trial 1 in this procedure I begun a brand new strategy that proved very effective: rather than searching for the darker vibrations of plain cereal and eliminating them one by one I had the brilliant idea to search for the one that has the bright white vibration of the bacteria. (I don't know why I didn't do this before, it should have been the obvious method in the first place.) The test became easier since in this way rather than having three cups to look into there was only one. With this new method I became extremely confident in where it was, but that also made me worried. I worried that being so incredibly confident, what if I'd be wrong? That would have been the end of it. But each time I was confident, it turned out to be correct. On trial 11 I wasn't sure and guessed, and sure enough, with a 1/3 chance of guessing it was incorrect. Trial 11 and 12 I was tired with headache and nausea and had to stop.

Conclusions:
Today's tests involved trying different variations of the test procedure to explore the spans that a test could have. How many cups could I be comfortable with? Could the cups be covered? I learned that a total of five or four cups was more work than a total of three cups. I noticed that my method had been to search for the dark vibrations to identify and eliminate the cereal cups first, and then look into what I thought to be the supplement cup to verify if I felt the supplement in it. This is a lot of work and involves feeling into all cups, which is why five cups is more exhausting than four, and four is more exhausting than three.

I learned a new method which I was very happy and comfortable with, and which should have been the obvious method at the very beginning. To only search for the one cup with the supplement and bright white vibration, and forget about sensing into the others in as great detail. This way I was making answers much (much!) faster and much (much!) more confidently. This test procedure 5 worked very well with this new method as well as having a total of only three cups and I continued with it.

A total of ten trials in a row seems to be the most I can do before becoming too uncomfortable to continue.

The elevation of the row of cups on the stove (the test was done in the kitchen) in combination with me being seated rather than standing did not allow even partial vision into the cups and there was no way to lean or reach forward to try to see inside the cups to detect any variations in darkness, fullness, or any other detail of the contents. All cups appeared identical from the outside.

Since the cups were two-in-one, the assistant was able to switch the outer cups as well as shuffle the cups, so that any external differences in the cups could not be learned. In my perception the cups all looked identical with normal vision anyway, not that this eliminates the potential concern of subconscious cues. The assistant was told to ensure a good randomization procedure and to keep in mind that the target cup might also stay in the same place but just turned around to not make it easy to guess that "it won't be in the same place twice".

Sometimes my thoughts interfered with my ability. If a thought such as "I don't think it is to the left" appeared for any reason it placed prejudice in my feeling. These thoughts are not from the same source as the feelings of vibration. At these times I would tell the assistant that an involuntary thought was interfering with my ability and I would get a re-shuffle. A re-shuffle would not necessarily change the position of a particular cup since placement is done entirely at random, but would take away interfering thoughts about where it should or should not be.

My comments on the confidence levels of specific individual trials have been absolutely honest even though they are strongly in my favor. In the future these tests will be done with witnesses who can verify what confidence level I claim in association with each answer but until then all we have is my honest word, which is not proof of anything.

The extreme confidence I developed in test procedure 5 worried me at first since I was nervous to find out the results. I was confident to the extent that I decided that if I would be incorrect in even one such answer I would have reason to very seriously start to doubt my chemical identification ability. I find it very encouraging that each time I was confident it was correct, and each time I was not confident it was incorrect. When I know I am guessing it is incorrect. I can not prove that this was the case, but it explains why I will continue with these tests.

In tests later on I will use the new method of detecting the supplement rather than searching through all cups and will try a larger total number of cups. Cups of a different material will be tried. A die will be used to determine the randomized placement of shuffled cups to eliminate any possible unintended pattern of randomization. And even though it takes the fun out of the test (and puts all the fun to the end of the test instead), feedback of answers will only be given at the end of a test and not after each trial. A second assistant will eventually take part in the test. The use of covers might not be possible but will be tried again before concluding on it. The distance between me and the row of cups will be increased further.

I was very pleased to find an easier method for identification (to search for the supplement cup rather than first eliminate the wrong ones one by one). I was happy to increase the sensitivity by adding the drop of water to the bacterial supplement (and it was fun to see the individual bacteria moving about like they do). I was surprised by the tremendous confidence level. And am of course pleased with the high frequency of correct results once I found a procedure, and a method, that worked for me.

For a test at home whose purpose was to try different test procedures and to assess the ability on Lactobacillus detection I believe the test was done under acceptable standards for this humble and unofficial purpose. I can not think of any flaw in the testing procedure, although I can think of several ways of improving the testing procedure for later tries. No conclusion can be made on whether I have any ability or not since a total of 10 or 12 trials in a row is too few and since additional improvements must be done to the test procedure before it is fully acceptable to draw conclusions on. I do conclude that at this point I can still not dismiss the possibility of having an ability to detect the presence of Lactobacillus through extrasensory perception.