Vision From Feeling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, Ashles, I see what you mean by cold reading. I agree with everything except putting it under the heading of cold reading. I think for many/most/some of us there's an immediate vision of interactive questioning and fishing rather than what you describe.

I'm not trying to make a semantic argument. I agree 100% that what you describe falls under cold reading. I'm just concerned we may not get a straight answer asking that way. I think we've found with Anita that we need to be pretty specific. Your elaboration is a big help.

Maybe a better question is to ask Anita specifically what she says and what her subject says. Maybe we should ask her to video tape a reading and post it so we can see.
 
ecarlson said:
...she said that because she has only ONCE detected a vasectomy...

Think about it - if she has looked at thousands of people over time, and only once seen a vasectomy, think of the sample size we would need to get a statistically significant number of vasectomies that she could see.
Click to expand...
Anita, I've been meaning to ask you a question, and now seems to be a good time. Now that you've admitted that detecting vasectomy is a rare (possibly, dare I say it? a once in a lifetime) event for you, how often DO you detect aliments/abnormalities? You must encounter tens (if not hundreds) of people every day. Your statements in this thread and on your web page led me to think that these reading are 'normal' for you. My belief was that they happened frequently.

Do these "visions from feeling" happen, on average, every hour? Every day? Once a month?

Enquiring minds want to know! ;)
 
Old man said:
Now that you've admitted that detecting vasectomy is a rare (possibly, dare I say it? a once in a lifetime) event for you, how often DO you detect aliments/abnormalities?
Click to expand...


To be fair, I think she stated that she only saw one vasectomy that she could confirm. She may have seen hundreds of others, but without asking the owner of the, er, equipment, she can't consider it a confirmed detection.
 
Hokulele said:
To be fair, I think she stated that she only saw one vasectomy that she could confirm. She may have seen hundreds of others, but without asking the owner of the, er, equipment, she can't consider it a confirmed detection.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know, that. But remember the waffling on circumcision?

ETA: She hasn't been exactly shy about other 'unconfirmed' detections, has she?
 
Last edited:
Old man said:
Anita, I've been meaning to ask you a question, and now seems to be a good time. Now that you've admitted that detecting vasectomy is a rare (possibly, dare I say it? a once in a lifetime) event for you, how often DO you detect aliments/abnormalities? You must encounter tens (if not hundreds) of people every day. Your statements in this thread and on your web page led me to think that these reading are 'normal' for you. My belief was that they happened frequently.

Do these "visions from feeling" happen, on average, every hour? Every day? Once a month?

Enquiring minds want to know! ;)
Click to expand...
Excellent question.

To put it another way, as a rough estimate, what proportion of new people you meet do you get a propoer reading from (i.e. that a reading comes to you as you have previously described as being totally accurate)?
 
UncaYimmy said:
Maybe a better question is to ask Anita specifically what she says and what her subject says. Maybe we should ask her to video tape a reading and post it so we can see.
Click to expand...
At this stage just about anything other than entirely unverified stories would be an improvement.

I'm even half inclined to suggest that her hole-filled protocol be allowed just to see if it yields any useful information at all. It would be unlikely to add any useful evidence towards Anita having paranormal ability, but it does have the possibility of adding evidence that she doesn't.
If she cannot perform in a test that has a certain degree of interpretation allowed then it would indicate strongly against an ability.
(I'm only saying this because it seems any proper testing appears to be very unlikely to happen).
 
Maybe if some kind of proper test is devised, it should include a good amount
of drugs. because i think it might be needed. hehe and I do mean the proper
pharmaceutical kind.
 
Diogenes said:
Maybe an even better question is why is any discussion at all necessary ?
Click to expand...

Good question. I can only answer for myself.

I think the only real progress skeptics can make with those who don't already think critically is one-on-one. That's why I am saddened that the MDC is being terminated. Nearly 100,000 web pages have the phrase "James Randi" and the word challenge in them - what a bargain for *not* spending the money!

If there are 100,000 web pages, think of the countless one-on-one conversations in which it has been referenced. People like me have used it as an eye-opener with multiple people. It always makes the other person at least pause and wonder why nobody has been able to prove their claims. It's a great segue into deeper conversations about testing claims.

So, while the MDC influences a large number of people, it's really happening on a one-on-one basis. It's people like me (and plenty of others) engaging other people in conversation and challenging their beliefs.

Anita is one of the people I believe I can influence. I honestly believe there's a chance she'll see the light and learn to address her claims critically. If she does, I'm sure it will expand outwards to her circle of friends. Based on her personality I'm sure she will enjoy challenging others the same way we have done her. What a great victory for critical thinking.

Even if she doesn't, I'm learning from the thread to do better the next time around. I'll also use this thread in conversations with other people to demonstrate how to approach claims like this. And I'll be doing it one person at a time.

There are plenty of threads I ignore because it's pretty clear no progress is going to be made. I'm not going to criticize those who enjoy the debate - I enjoy it myself at times. There are still other threads where the choir is preaching among themselves. That can be fun, too.

I just happen to think some good can come out of this one.
 
I haven't followed all the pages here, but if she was a dog, there is reasonable evidence existing that they can identify disease(s), especially cancer. Hmmm. Canine "feeling" is rather strong.
 
I have been playing couch jockey all day and just checked my email. There was a very nice letter from Anita and as soon as she gives me permission, I will post it here. Eric's talk had a big impact on her last night (IMO) and she now realizes that she has more work to do before she would be testable.
UncYimmy
Thanks so much for putting together the prospective protocol. I printed out copies and had them available for everyone but we just never got that far. I just wanted you to know that your work was appreciated.:)
ecarlson
And a big thanks to Eric for his talk. I did not realize how many claimants he has dealt with. It was informative and interesting, to say the least. Two hours just flew by. Thanks again, Eric.
 
I don't suppose anyone videotaped Dr. Carlson's talk, did they? Is this a standard talk that he gives that we can see or read elsewhere, or was it tailored to the evening?

Ward
 
Last edited:
I now have to ask VFF (Anita) for some clarification:

Do you "see people's insides" all the time, or not? Is it a daily occurance? When you find a person you can "read", can you read them all the time, or only on some occasions?

The earlier stages of this thread seemed to imply that it was something that was common in her life. But the number of amendments, adjustments, and requests for "byes" leads me to now question how common this experience actually is in her life.

If it is some form of physical perception, then it should work most of the time. (Most of us have perceptual difficulties when we are tired, overstressed, in a distracting environment, etc.) If only certain people produce a 'signal' she can 'read', then those people would, one expects, always be readable.

One of the alternative mechanisms hypothesized for her visual/mental image events is synesthesia--but for it to be synesthesia, it needs to be involuntary, consistent, and lifelong. That is, if to you a trumpet's note is a blue sound, then it always is and can't be made not-blue. Most synesthetes have learned to suppress the imagery somewhat when they want to focus on something else, but it's always there, and when not actively suppressed, always the same. Synesthesia is neuralogic in nature, so it's not a learned association...I just wrote a (short) paper on this last quarter, so I'm pretty secure on my research here.

Curiouser and curiouser, but getting further than ever from a test, I suspect...

Just my thoughts, MK
 
UncaYimmy
Thanks so much for putting together the prospective protocol. I printed out copies and had them available for everyone but we just never got that far. I just wanted you to know that your work was appreciated.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.
 
roger said:
I did understand you - you are wrong. Your link is from the psych program - that is their limitation. I gave you a link that explicitly states that you can get two BSc's at the same time. Nothing stops you from getting a Bsc chemistry and BSc physics at the same time.
Click to expand...

Dude, I didn't link anything...you are thinking of someone else. And I already conceded to someone else that I was mistaken about the American system, I didn't realise it was so different to the Australian one, where you can't do two concurrent BSci (we have two majors within the one degree instead).

Also, I agree with desertgal - I don't think Anita is a scam artist, I think she genuinely believes her abilities are real. At least that is one step up from Sylvia Browne.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Diogenes:
Maybe an even better question is why is any discussion at all necessary ?

UncaYimmy:
Good question. I can only answer for myself. ( Long explanation follows.... )


UncaYimmy,

I was going to elaborate, but I thought my short comment would be sufficient in the context of the blurb I quoted..

I had responded to:
...Maybe a better question is to ask Anita specifically what she says and what her subject says....
Click to expand...

Based on what Anita claims her powers are, why should she have any discussion with her subjects, at all ?


Let me guess.. Her answer would be something like:

" I don't really understand how it works, but perhaps in hearing their voices, it helps me fine tune my receiving mechanism to the transdimensional frequencies, that enable me to see the X-ray like images . "
 
I thought they had a crystal thingamajiggy gadget that did all that for them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom