Vision From Feeling

[Uncayimmy]

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

Mea culpa.

It was a nice speech, though, yeh?

 

[godofpie]

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

It was not video taped but I wish I had. Eric is a physicist by trade and has taught classes on skepticism as well, but he put this presentation together just for our group.

Below is Anita's letter-

Jim,
Thank you for arranging such a wonderful skeptics group, I
value being a member and have already learned a lot just from
yesterday that will be tremendously helpful in my own
investigation. I must admit I did not know what to expect,
being a psychic claimant and entering a room full of skeptics,
but I was pleasantly surprised to find open-minded, very
intelligent, easy to talk to people who were tolerant to my
perspective.

I apologize for getting very excited, I just haven't had the
opportunity to share these things with people before and have
had to struggle to keep these things a hidden aspect of my
life. From yesterday's meeting and Dr. Carlson's talk I
realized that I am not clear enough at this point about how to
design a test, and that most of this work is my own
responsibility. I realize I need more experience with the
perceptions, and have begun arranging a study - note: not a
test.

The study would hopefully give me experience with more and new
ailments, some of which could be useful for test purposes. If I
do not have an ESP ability the study would give it plenty of
opportunity to be revealed as such. The study can not provide
any evidence FOR an ESP ability but can provide evidence
AGAINST an ESP ability. I will attempt psychic medical diagnose
with a few volunteers, and if successful I change one condition
at a time toward proper test conditions.

I have asked for two skeptics from our group to participate in
my study. All they would do is to be present and to write down
their observations and comments, because if we later on decide
to arrange a real test of my claim then these two will be able
to describe what I do in their own words, and from a different
perspective than just my own, and that would be very helpful. I
already have two skeptics in mind who attended yesterday's
meeting. The only reason I have chosen them and not the others
is because their "energy", or presence, is most similar to mine
and they would be less of a distraction.

I will be posting the material for my study on my webpage www.
visionfromfeeling.com soon, and if you want to help me in
planning the study that would be appreciated.

Thanks Jim and I look forward to seeing all of you next time.

Anita

 

[desertgal]

Below is Anita's letter-

...I apologize for getting very excited, I just haven't had the
opportunity to share these things with people before and have
had to struggle to keep these things a hidden aspect of my
life.

Huh? She said several times, in this thread, that most people in the town where she grew up, as well as her family, were aware of this alleged ability, and relatively unimpressed by it. She has also said, several times, that, to her, this alleged ability is as normal and mundane as seeing with our eyes is to you and I.

What she says in this letter seems to be contradictory.

 

[skeen]

Why can't she just do what she claims she has been doing all along? If she can do what she says she can do, she could very easily have convinced a hell of a lot of the skeptics at that group, by merely telling them what she sees.

At least give people something. We haven't even had an informal presentation of these alleged abilities. It's all the same, isn't it? These people.

She has said time and time again that she actually sees the muscle tissue, like an X-ray. If she can do this, she cannot possibly be wrong in what she says - and if she is, that should be sufficient enough for her to recognize that it's just her imagination.

 

[Uncayimmy]

She has said time and time again that she actually sees the muscle tissue, like an X-ray. If she can do this, she cannot possibly be wrong in what she says - and if she is, that should be sufficient enough for her to recognize that it's just her imagination.

Besides the fact that x-rays aren't effective with muscle (ahem), if it *is* her imagination (dollars to donuts that's the case), making her realize that is going to be exceptionally difficult.

Think about it. She fundamentally has two choices:

1) I am special. There's no one like me on the whole planet. I have an ability that can do so much good for so many people. Nobody else has ever done it. My ability will turn science on its ear. I will prove all the skeptics wrong.

2) I'm just an ordinary person. I have been deceiving myself for years. I have announced to the world how special my abilities are, and now I have to admit it was all in my imagination. I have convinced myself and attempted to convince others, and now I have to admit I was completely wrong.

Most skeptics are not inclined to go down the "I am special" path, but suppose you were. How hard do you think it would be to come around once you got there?

I think the mistake we skeptics make sometimes is not giving a soft enough landing pad.

 

[stanfr]

Even if she doesnt have the claimed abilities, i want to hire her to help market my work! This thread by itself could form the basis of a seminar or maybe infomercial (similar to the 'buy-foreclosures' or 'get rich on E-bay' ones I mean, in a short period of time, she's taken a rather unimaginative claim and despite a complete lack of real evidence, has captured a large amount of attention from a group of presumably critical thinkers, several hundred responses worth! Now she's backpedaling, dangling out the carrot of her claims to keep folks interested, when her original claims could be easily tested in short order. Maybe it's the Swedish part that gives her an edge--i must confess it does for
me

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 15:

Professor Yaffle:

If that was me, that would suggest to me that nobody was convinced I could do it. If I did this a number of times in front of the same person, it would be at least considered a heck of a good party trick.

The people who know me are used to the way I describe their health and how they are feeling. If you knew me for a while you would get used to it as well.

Diogenes:

I didn't really express myself well. I agree her claim is falsifiable, but thus far she seems unwilling to have it falsified, in spite of evidence that it already has been.

I am definitely not unwilling to have the claim falsified. I am approaching tests best I can. From Thursday's meeting with the local skeptics group I realize now that there is more responsibility on myself as the claimant to arrange for the tests, and I am taking more initiative now. I am arranging for a study, whose main objective is to falsify a non-ability! The only evidence so far against an ESP ability is that I described an ailment below the sternum as being associated to the small intestine, and someone here on the Forum pointed out that the small intestine in fact is not in that region at all, which is true. More experience with these perceptions should allow plenty of opportunity for a non-ability to be revealed as such. I am not avoiding it.

The formal test is a smokescreen,

What?

and many are just being nicey-wicey to the woo-woo..

And I suggest you do the same. Let's just all be nice to each other and we can still communicate about this ability and having it tested.

( Yeah, I know that's the way we're supposed to do it here, but I just can't seem to play the part of witting idiot this time around. )

As long as that means you'll be a good skeptic, because that's what we're here for. I just assure you I am not trying to trick anyone, and the anecdotal experiences I've described, all took place in the way I described them.

Dr. Carlson:

At present I'm trying to discuss a protocol which can be followed to test the claimant's claims. Since she apparently doesn't believe her ability to identify chemicals is sufficiently reliable to test, I made some suggestions about medical tests. Medical tests are hard to conduct, so it may be a while (if ever) before we agree on a protocol.

I'm sure members of this forum could suggest such tests, and may come back and ask advice from you. But I think it's premature until the claimant makes more specific claims about what they can and can't do.

After Thursday's meeting with Dr. Carlson and the others of the local Winston-Salem skeptics group, I've come to realize that I am not as clear as I need to be about how to take what my medical perceptions are and conform them to a test situation. I am arranging to have a study into my perceptions which will answer some of these questions.

Belz:
When I said "There's so many of you and only one of me.", Belz said "This is usually the case when you suppose fringe claims. It's often a clear indication that something's wrong with your ideas." So because I am the only psychic claimant posting on this thread, and there are so many skeptics here involved in the discussion, that would make my claim less reliable? So if we invite some more psychics in here, or ask some of you skeptics to leave, my claim would immediately become more reliable? I don't understand.

When I said, "A test with skeptics will eliminate this concern." Belz said "From experience, I seriously doubt it." My experience is that when psychic claimants put their claims and alleged abilities to the test with skeptics, it can bring clarity into the claim. From my meeting with the local skeptics earlier this week, I am now even more convinced of this, so it is my experience. Involving skeptics can only be helpful in my investigation into my medical perceptions.

When I said "I have failed to dismiss the possibility of an ability", Belz said "You never will. Which is why you need to show that you DO have it, not the other way around." Actually I disagree. Regardless of what my anecdotal experiences would indicate, we can work from the assumption that it is more likely the case of a non-ability (no ESP), and simpler initial tests will bring plenty of opportunity for a non-ability to be revealed as such. Only after I have failed to dismiss the possibility of an ability will I consider it worthwhile to invest in more elaborate testing.

Ashles:

Could the element identification test not be done the same way as proposed for the medical test? That is to say that a number of chemicals are presented and Anita only identifies the ones where she is sure her ability is working. In my opinion if she can't even do that then I am not sure how she has got the impression she can identify chemicals by sight in the first place.

Yes I like that idea, however I invest my time and efforts now into testing my claim of psychic medical diagnose.

This has clearly changed as now it appears that information received about chemistry, materials and medicines obviously isn't reliable enough to test.

I have consistently stated that the other aspects of the perceptions occur less frequently and not to a reliable extent. It is either because there is no ESP ability in chemical identification, or because it does not occur on demand and can not be tested. Further testing could reveal which is the case, but I am less interested since I believe that the medical information aspect of the perceptions is more testable and I will proceed with that. I will need to update these recent conclusions on my website.

But not a blindfold? Can a sheet be draped over the person?

I will be conducting a study into my perceptions soon, the specifics of which I will post here and also on my website soon, in which I will try various test conditions such as blindfold and screens to be able to answer these questions.

Again, you say you have tested yourself and "do not have a single example of when I would have been incorrect" but that seems at odds with this claim.

It is true that I do not have a single example of having made an incorrect statement in medical perceptions, except for when I described a problem with the small intestine just below the sternum, and someone on this Forum pointed that out. I am not avoiding of incorrect perceptions, I am approaching my investigation in an objective, open-minded manner. I don't see the contradiction that you see.

You say you are studying for a B.S. in Chemistry and another B.S. in Optical Science, you are also studying (as it appears from flicking through this thread) Quantum Mechanics, Calculus, Human anatomy, Physics, and Medicine.

Quantum Mechanics, Calculus and Physics are all part of my Physics degree. I took Human Anatomy & Physiology as electives. There are no undergraduate classes in Medicine that I'm aware of. Pre-Medicine students often study Chemistry and Biology or both, and I am doing that.

Are there others? Have I added some not there?
To what depth are each of these subjects visited?
Which do you feel strongest in at the moment? (Feel free to ignore this question if you feel it is too personal, I just feel that discussions in certain areas aren't going anywhere and it might be more fruitful to concentrate on any areas where you feel stronger)

I am also studying some Electrical Engineering, and if somehow possible will add it as a third major. To what depth? I am studying a B.S. major in Chemistry so it is in depth. I am studying a B.S. major in Physics, so Physics is also in depth. I am studying Calculus up to Calculus 4. Quantum Physics is covered in its specific course, and is also the emphasis of two of my chemistry classes which apply it to chemistry. Human Anatomy was on the undergraduate, introductory level, where we are introduced to the organs and tissues of the human body, learn the names of major structures in the body, and also some of the chemistry of the body. The depth of my studies in Electrical Engineering depends only on how many such classes I can fit into my already overflowing schedule. I have the most background in Chemistry at the moment. All these courses are on the undergraduate level. I don't quite see how these questions are relevant to my paranormal investigation, but I don't mind.

Actually could that be a test? Could you identify the gender of a person covered in a sheet? Or from a small area of visible skin (say the side of the waist perhaps?)

Some of the questions regarding under what conditions the perceptions can perform will be answered in a study I am planning. I do not expect to put the volunteers through the test though to answer this question.

(ETA: I just looked at the IIG website - The discussion around the protocol has been going on since December 2007???)

In my defense, I am not responsible for the delay. I reply within the next day to any of my correspondence with the IIG whereas bless their hearts, it usually takes them months to get back with me each time. And a correction, I contacted the IIG and sent in my application papers in July 2007.

JWideman:

Scientists accept alternative explanations for a phenomena

And I do that.

and control for them. You seem to have trouble with this.

I will be controlling for them. That is what tests are for. I have no trouble with this. You may have trouble realizing that I have no trouble with this.

My original point, and it has gotten somewhat sidetracked, is that the onus is on you to prove you have this ability, and not on us to prove you don't. Saying "tests haven't proved I'm not psychic" is much like saying "tests haven't proved there's no Bigfoot".

AND I KNOW THAT. The only conclusion I make based on apparent accuracy in anecdotal experiences with the medical perceptions, is, proceed toward further testing.

You've taken several informal tests so far.

Not in psychic medical diagnose on live persons.

In each case, you've had the opportunity to first say "I can't do it this way". Instead, you continued with the test and failed.

This refers to aspects of the perceptions that are not what my main claim is here nor what I am working on having tested. And in many cases with the other tests I was trying out new things just to find out how it does. If I actually have a real test, then I will have to have experienced those specific details of the test before, and to claim that I can perform under those specific conditions, and no excuses can be made once the outcome of such tests are in. These informal tests you refer to were done to explore the terrain and to establish the limits of my capabilities. I know it sounds like excuses but I am just stating how it is, and had I said anything otherwise then I'd be lying.

And if that routine with counting the misses as hits is any indication, it's clear how you've convinced yourself that you have this ability. Thus, it is doubtful that you will accept even failing a formal test.

I do not count misses as hits. What's this all about? I've convinced myself that there is a possible ability and I've convinced myself that there is reason to proceed toward further, and more proper, testing, and this is based on an apparent good accuracy in past experiences. The fact that you say that I've convinced myself of having an ability is just false and unfounded because it is not true. I will accept a result of a formal test that indicates no ESP ability. The objective of my investigation is to find out the source of the medical perceptions, or just whether ESP or not, as well as what the accuracy in fact is under a test setting. A test that indicates "no ESP ability" is not a failed test. Such a test has acchieved the objective, that is to find out.

 

[Akhenaten]

You've taken several informal tests so far.

Not in psychic medical diagnose on live persons.

What's this page all about then?


"Observations made with my ability"

 

[Akhenaten]

I will be conducting a study into my perceptions soon, the specifics of which I will post here and also on my website soon, in which I will try various test conditions such as blindfold and screens to be able to answer these questions.

The fact that you italicised the word "study" here seems to me to indicate that you're perfectly aware that all you're really doing is repeating all of your earlier outlandish, albeit vague, claims and simply substituting "study" for "test" and hoping nobody notices.

I'll bet you don't get away with it.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 16:

Hokulele:

(...) to exclude the exchange of communication between the guesser and the subjects.

Guesser??! I like your test suggestions though, very good.

UncaYimmy:

Explain to me how you can fail to dismiss that which has never been proven to exist in the first place?

Well, the way I think about it is that an ESP ability can be shown to not exist, or to exist, or we can be in a situation where neither has been established just yet. If it is shown to not exist, it has been falsified. If we've had tests that can not conclude ESP ability, yet did not conclude no ESP ability, then we have failed to dismiss an ESP ability. It makes perfect sense to me.

Failing a simpler test means "no ESP", passing a simpler test means "failed to dismiss an ESP ability".
Failing a real test means "no ESP", passing a real test means "ESP". Something like that. As long as I know what I'm doing.

Old man:
When I said "I never get praise, recognition or adulation for this." I was expressing irony.

Like I said, you live in a strange world. Faith healers get attention, dowsers get attention, heck, the kid in school who knows all the answers gets attention, but you don’t?

I only reveal my ability to friends and family, not to all people, and for people who know me it is just part of who I am. I am sure I'll get attention if I pass psychic tests or get more publicity with this, so don't worry. The world is not so strange after all. I get criticized for what I do, for what I don't do, and for what others do, and for what others don't do. Everything is wrong.

Somebody upthread did point out that by starting this thread, you’re already getting a lot of attention.

Well, then all is well with the world as far as you're concerned.

Maybe you’re like the rich kid you complains “I never get anything!”

I think you are just being silly. People who know me do not give me attention for describing their health and the way they are feeling, they get used to it. And I have kept this mostly to myself and not shared this with the world. I am not here to bring attention to myself, I am here to discuss the perceptions and how to test them. If I get attention, you'll criticize me. If I don't get attention, you'll criticize me. You skeptics are a fun bunch. If I told you guys that I'm wearing a white shirt, you would all question that and I wouldn't hear the end of it for two pages. Everything I do is wrong, everything I don't do is wrong.

Anita (sigh), you just don’t get it, do you? What will be your response if NONE of your readings (under the ‘altered’ protocol) are right?

Well, Old man, you just don't get it either. As I've already said many times before, if the test concludes no ESP ability, I will be happy and will have acchieved the objective of the test, and nothing changes in my world. I will have a label for what my perceptions are, or are not.

I’m pretty sure that even I could do better than chance at sorting men from women, given a chance to see some of their skin.

I already told Locknar that I would personally shave all the men's backs to make them indistinguishable from the women.

Dr. Carlson:

If we pick a particular ailment, I need to find a significant number of people who might have that ailment. Hence, for example, if she says 'polydactism', I'd need to find a bunch of people with extra fingers or toes - not that easy.

That is why perhaps more than one ailment that is acceptable for test purposes could be used.

Seeing whether someone else can "cold read" as well as her isn't foolproof, since the competition might be bad at cold reading.

In my original protocol suggestion to the IIG I suggested having a physician or two take the test with me to reduce the concern that I'd be picking up on external symptoms, since I assumed that a doctor would have experience in these sort of things. The IIG however did not see the need to include this on the test and it is no longer part of our protocol discussion.

At the moment I'm awaiting response to my first suggestion, that I find some number of people with specific medical indications which would be pretty easy to pick up, and then she takes a matching quiz.

I can only agree to a test that lets me pass on persons in which I sense no health information, since my claim specifies that "I do not detect each case in which an ailment occurs". I believe that a test can be designed according to this condition as well.

Ashles:

If there were one overriding constant in many claimants posts, it is the overly casual way in which the 'ability' is described.

We have already discussed this across several pages of my thread. I have had medical perceptions for many years now and it is not something that would still excite me, also it developed gradually so there was never one moment that would have made me excited or shocked in the first place. Stop criticizing me for who I am or how I feel about my claim, that is irrelevant and you do not know how a true psychic would in fact feel about their abilities so it should not be a topic of discussion. It is like having blind people criticize a person who can see for not being really, really excited every day for seeing! Stop this please, I don't want to have to explain the same thing many times again, it has already been done.

It is so often described as usual for them, no big deal, accepted by friends and family, something they have always had and are used to, sometimes they even express surprise other people think it is so remarkable.

Alright then, how would you want my family and friends to react? Should we throw a party every time I accurately describe their health and feeling? What do you think I should do every time I perceive the medical state of people? How about I do the same thing you do when you hear something? Or when you see? What do you do when you see things? Well, you know you should be very excited about having eyesight, you see there are a lot of blind people in the world.

Of all the claims I have read on these forums, I would say this is the most constant theme - the playing down of the amzingness of the ability.

Alright, let's get very excited then.

While at the same time, ironically, the reluctance to accept it might not be real.

I have consistently stated that I am very willing to accept the conclusion of the test saying that it is not the case of ESP. The fact that you argue otherwise and accuse me of things that are not true shows to me that your beliefs are not all founded on truth.

Maybe it is an important part of convincing themselves it is real, the deliberate acceptance or 'normalisation' of the 'ability'.

I am not convinced it is real. That is why I am having the test. I am humble enough to realize that the perceptions may not be real images of tissue, but a creative creation of my mind, and either case it is what it is and nothing changes and I don't mind either outcome of the test. My perceptions are as normal to me as eyesight is to you. The fact that most people do not see organs and tissue is to me as redundant as the fact to you that there are many people in the world who can't see, or can't hear at all. Why can't you accept that this is normal to me? Or, would you at least stop talking about it? It's reaching the point of being rude.

Maybe they feel it will be less likely to be 'taken away' if it is seen as more usual or accepted.

It won't be taken away, because the perceptions will continue in the exact same way. Knowing what they are is just a label. It seems that you are overanalyzing, and most of your conclusions are incorrect. I should know, I'm right here in the experience myself.

(I wouldn't at this point want to say whether this applied to Anita, but I believe it certainly has to previous posters)

Oh, alright.

Everyone:
I think a sex identification test is probably not the main health information to test for that we should be focusing on, since sex definitely has external symptoms. If I had suggested an ailment that as much as may have external symptoms, you would all be chasing me for that. Now that you're all discussing to have one of the most externally detectable types of information about a person on a test surprises me. I'm shocked. Actually, I'm stunned. And frankly, I'm disappointed. Just think about what I just said. It might occur to you as well, and then you'll be as shocked as I am.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Off topic (hence the spoiler) about dogs sensing cancer.

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.

Could someone elaborate on this, I've seen it mentioned at least two times on this thread already, once by Anita, IIRC. Is it about the smell of the medication or something similar? Or, maybe nothing at all?

 

[Pup]

I have consistently stated that I am very willing to accept the conclusion of the test saying that it is not the case of ESP. The fact that you argue otherwise and accuse me of things that are not true shows to me that your beliefs are not all founded on truth.

If you're not trying to hang on to the possibility that you do have the ability, why in this thread did you change the suggested protocol from Miss Kitt's yes-or-no , to one that's easier to pass with cold reading?

Originally it was to be check-off, right or wrong, tonsils in or out, appendix in or out (post 26). You suggested (post 41)

My cards are then compared with those of each person to see whether there is a general sense of accuracy, or whether there is not. (emphasis added)

The only reason I can see to substitute that for the original protocol is to make your ability appear to be real, for a little longer. Giving answers which people subjectively believe have "a general sense of accuracy" is what keeps fake fortune tellers and psychics in business, when their ability doesn't show up under more objective conditions.

So why did you want to change the protocol to one that's easier to pass the way people do, when they don't have a real ability?

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
We have already discussed this across several pages of my thread. I have had medical perceptions for many years now and it is not something that would still excite me, also it developed gradually so there was never one moment that would have made me excited or shocked in the first place. Stop criticizing me for who I am or how I feel about my claim, that is irrelevant and you do not know how a true psychic would in fact feel about their abilities so it should not be a topic of discussion.

But we do have experience with how deluded or lying 'psychics' feel and behave.
And until some real evidence is presented (not more unverified stories and ad hoc 'tests' conducted and judged by yourself) you are not going to be assumed to be a 'true psychic' (or equivalent).

It is like having blind people criticize a person who can see for not being really, really excited every day for seeing!

Wow you really won't let a false analogy go will you? Yet again, no it isn't comparable.
What is more likely at the moent is that it is an incorrect perception rather than for someone who is perceiving something others aren't.
There is currently no real evidence that you are actually perceiving anything others aren't.
Until you work out a proper test there won't be.

Stop this please, I don't want to have to explain the same thing many times again, it has already been done.

Believe me it gets as tedious for us as for you.
You insist on making the same incorrect analogies over and over again so some of our responses are going to seem equally repetitive.
My post was quite a way back - you didn't need to respond to it if you didn't want to. But it seems you almost want this part of the discussion to be discarded, your opinion on it accepted and then we must talk of it no more. Doesn't work that way.

This is standard claimant behaviour and although you clearly do not like it described as such, we have a lot of experience with such claims. Sorry but this is a public forum and I am breaking no forum rules by responding as I see appropriate.
I do see your behaviour as typical and you do have an occasional tendency to almost insist people do not raise certain issues or direct the conversation in certain directions, as you have done just here.

You can ignore certain subjects or people or you can respond to them, but you can't order people to raise only the subjects you wish.

Alright then, how would you want my family and friends to react? Should we throw a party every time I accurately describe their health and feeling? What do you think I should do every time I perceive the medical state of people? How about I do the same thing you do when you hear something? Or when you see? What do you do when you see things? Well, you know you should be very excited about having eyesight, you see there are a lot of blind people in the world.

This is deeply disingenuous.
I could easily demonstrate my ability to hear or see under controlled conditions. I could do it today far beyond any shadow of doubt.
You cannot with your claimed ability.
Also my ability to see and hear contravenes no known scientific assumptions.
Your claim does in many ways.
Also I would not be the only person who had ever been able to perceive in my claimed way.
You would.

Really that analogy is appalling.

If you genuinely do not understand why that comparison fails in every way then I doubt you will ever be able to be in any way logical about any aspect of this claim.

Alright, let's get very excited then.

Can I also remind you that you have set up a website around your suposed claims. And you have visited other websites to tell people abut your ability. Has anyone ever done that about their hearing or vision?
It's the double standards I am highlighting.

I have consistently stated that I am very willing to accept the conclusion of the test saying that it is not the case of ESP. The fact that you argue otherwise

That is actually a lie.
I asked you that question directly and accepted your answer on the subject. Please do not lie about my responses.

and accuse me of things that are not true

I am describing my opinion on your claims and ways in which you have appeared similar to other claimants.
The only way to definitively demonstrate my personal opinions are incorrect is to run an independently verified test.
Looks like we aren't near one of those.

shows to me that your beliefs are not all founded on truth.

Well again that's your opinion. Some testing would render all this discussion irrelevant.

I am not convinced it is real. That is why I am having the test. I am humble enough to realize that the perceptions may not be real images of tissue, but a creative creation of my mind, and either case it is what it is and nothing changes and I don't mind either outcome of the test.

And I have already accepted this as true.

And then yet again you embark on the silly analogy...

My perceptions are as normal to me as eyesight is to you.

Untrue.
I have never set up websites describing my unusual ability to 'see'.

The fact that most people do not see organs and tissue is to me as redundant as the fact to you that there are many people in the world who can't see, or can't hear at all. Why can't you accept that this is normal to me? Or, would you at least stop talking about it? It's reaching the point of being rude.

Again you attempt to forcefully direct what can and can't be discussed. Which is in itself quite rude.

Your analogy about eyesight is deeply flawed and I will continue pointing that out whether you like it or not (and part of me suspects you know this which is why you raise it again and then attempt to close the issue down almost to 'have the last word' on the subject).

You absolutely do NOT consider your claimed ability as normal as eyesight or hearing because
1. It contravenes known scientific knowledge
2. You have set up a website regarding it
3. You have brought it up on several internet forums (including a couple of the best known skeptic communities in the world)
4. You have brought it up with a professor of Physics
5. You claim to want to use it to generate a new field of study
6. You cannot conclusively describe what it can and can't do, or when it is and isn't 'working'
7. A test to confirm the 'ability' of eyesight or hearing could be concluded positively within hours, maybe minutes

Does that sound like someone who believes they possess something entirely mundane that is no more remarkable or unusual than eyesight or hearing?

It won't be taken away, because the perceptions will continue in the exact same way. Knowing what they are is just a label.

I was referring to the belief you have a special ability being taken away.
Misperception is not unique, nor an ability in itself.

It seems that you are overanalyzing, and most of your conclusions are incorrect. I should know, I'm right here in the experience myself.

A lot of deluded or untruthful people say exactly the same thing. They 'know' because it is hapening to them. 'I know I saw a ghost. I was there!'
What would you say if Sylvia Browne declared she 'knows' she is hearing dead people, it is happening to her?
They ALSO think they are right. Yet somehow you know your subjective observations are not in fact subjective but are im fact totally objective? Again that would be a paranormal claim.

I cannot emphasise this stongly enough - until some independent testing is carried out there is no reason for anyone else to assume you are different or have a unique ability.
The onus is on you to try and get this testing done. And done as objectively as possible.

Trying to demand our belief or acceptance will simpy not work.

Now that you're all discussing to have one of the most externally detectable types of information about a person on a test surprises me. I'm shocked. Actually, I'm stunned. And frankly, I'm disappointed. Just think about what I just said. It might occur to you as well, and then you'll be as shocked as I am.

The question remains... is this something you can do? Could you park the disappointment, shock and stunned behaviour and try to help us understand what you can and can't do.
This is a very vague response and expecting us to guess why you find the suggestion surprising, shocking etc. isn't a great help. (I'm assuming it would be something to do with the fact that it could potetially be externally detected y you, but obviously that would be compensated for. We're still trying to work out what you claim you can and can't do and then build a protocol around that)

This really will all be sorted a lot quicker if you try and reach some form of agreed testing rather than the protestations of being shocked (for reasons that are not obvious and again aren't really relevant). Can you do this? Even telling us why not may help reach a protocol which is the idea of this thread.
Isn't it?

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
Yes I like that idea, however I invest my time and efforts now into testing my claim of psychic medical diagnose.

The problem is your tests for the medical diagnoses are not strict enough.
The relative weakness of the chemical identification ability can be comensatedfor.
If it performs above chance the testing will show that.
If it doesn't the question would be raised why you felt you had that ability in the first place.

When does the ability appear, how often, in specific circumstances...?

I have consistently stated that the other aspects of the perceptions occur less frequently and not to a reliable extent. It is either because there is no ESP ability in chemical identification, or because it does not occur on demand and can not be tested. Further testing could reveal which is the case, but I am less interested since I believe that the medical information aspect of the perceptions is more testable and I will proceed with that. I will need to update these recent conclusions on my website.

These aren't really conclusions but entirely unverified guesses and feelings.

I will be conducting a study into my perceptions soon, the specifics of which I will post here and also on my website soon, in which I will try various test conditions such as blindfold and screens to be able to answer these questions.

But why not conduct such tests with one of the 2 independent agencies that you are in contact with?
If they are valid tests I am sure they will be happy to assist or advise.
If they are not valid tests then you ar only wasting your own time.
Please get their help, your own studies so far appear inadequate in terms of scientific rigour.

It is true that I do not have a single example of having made an incorrect statement in medical perceptions, except for when I described a problem with the small intestine just below the sternum, and someone on this Forum pointed that out. I am not avoiding of incorrect perceptions, I am approaching my investigation in an objective, open-minded manner. I don't see the contradiction that you see.

You haven't actually done any objective testing yet.

Quantum Mechanics, Calculus and Physics are all part of my Physics degree. I took Human Anatomy & Physiology as electives. There are no undergraduate classes in Medicine that I'm aware of. Pre-Medicine students often study Chemistry and Biology or both, and I am doing that.
I am also studying some Electrical Engineering, and if somehow possible will add it as a third major.

I will leave it to the other posters to check whether that is even possible at you university.
Why try to do so many different majors? Surely you should get somewhere with some of them first before deciding to add yet more?
At the moment as you say yourself you haven't actually studied statistics or QM yet - isn't it best to see how you get on before adding yet more to your workload? (But this is more general conversation and not directly related to the ability so feel free to ignore if you want)

To what depth? I am studying a B.S. major in Chemistry so it is in depth. I am studying a B.S. major in Physics, so Physics is also in depth. I am studying Calculus up to Calculus 4. Quantum Physics is covered in its specific course, and is also the emphasis of two of my chemistry classes which apply it to chemistry. Human Anatomy was on the undergraduate, introductory level, where we are introduced to the organs and tissues of the human body, learn the names of major structures in the body, and also some of the chemistry of the body. The depth of my studies in Electrical Engineering depends only on how many such classes I can fit into my already overflowing schedule. I have the most background in Chemistry at the moment. All these courses are on the undergraduate level. I don't quite see how these questions are relevant to my paranormal investigation, but I don't mind.

I saw them as partially relevant as you have thrown in a few different scientific explanations in to your answers, but none had any particular depth. The use of QM as an explanation was particulalry jarring as you have not as yet studied it.
By avoiding areas you are less knowledgeable of it might a more weight to your discussions in areas you have studied in more depth.

For example - your best knowledge is of chemistry and as mentioned before the chemical analysis test would be in many ways the best area to test.
Even though it is a weaker ability it really might make sense to try to investigate that for a little while.
How frequent is the ability there, what kind of strength is it, what proportions of chemicals show up etc.

It could be far more productive in generating a protocol.
Remember, to pass a test you don't need 100% accuracy, simply statistically above chance (at an agreed level).

Some of the questions regarding under what conditions the perceptions can perform will be answered in a study I am planning. I do not expect to put the volunteers through the test though to answer this question.

Could yu not run these tests with someone independent somehow? Self-run tests are not yielding great benefits here.

In my defense, I am not responsible for the delay. I reply within the next day to any of my correspondence with the IIG whereas bless their hearts, it usually takes them months to get back with me each time. And a correction, I contacted the IIG and sent in my application papers in July 2007.

So it has been 17 months without an agreed protocol?

If you want to use the other thread I set up to concentrate on protocol discussion (minus the explanations and other derails we have had on this thread) please feel free.

 

[JWideman]

JWideman:

And I do that.

Let's say you live in an apartment building, somewhere in the middle floors. You look out the window one day and see a shoe falling. Most people would conclude someone in an upstairs apartment threw it out the window. Judging by your various postings, you would conclude there was a ghost around. For you, the paranormal is not only likely, but the most obvious.

I will be controlling for them. That is what tests are for. I have no trouble with this. You may have trouble realizing that I have no trouble with this.

Well, as demonstrated by the cereal tests, as soon as you start adding controls, you miss more often. The cereal test, if done properly, would have convinced you that you had no ability. But you'd rather hang onto your delusion.

AND I KNOW THAT. The only conclusion I make based on apparent accuracy in anecdotal experiences with the medical perceptions, is, proceed toward further testing.

And when those tests begin to show less favorable results, you'll abandon them and change your claim yet again.

Not in psychic medical diagnose on live persons.

Here's the thing: you backed up your claim of being able to see lactobacillus in a person by claiming you could see it in a box of cereal. So how was testing that not a valid test of your abilities?

This refers to aspects of the perceptions that are not what my main claim is here nor what I am working on having tested. And in many cases with the other tests I was trying out new things just to find out how it does. If I actually have a real test, then I will have to have experienced those specific details of the test before, and to claim that I can perform under those specific conditions, and no excuses can be made once the outcome of such tests are in. These informal tests you refer to were done to explore the terrain and to establish the limits of my capabilities. I know it sounds like excuses but I am just stating how it is, and had I said anything otherwise then I'd be lying.

But they do relate to your main claim. And the purpose of the informal tests was to prove to yourself that maybe, just maybe, you didn't have this ability after all. Stating, after the fact, that these were just tests to find the limits of your ability is how you deceive yourself, but won't fool us.
It wouldn't have been lying at all for you to have said "I can't see anything in this particular case. Let's move on." It would have, of course, been close to admitting you don't have an ability and that's just too much for you.

I do not count misses as hits. What's this all about?

UncaYimmy already called you on it:
#350
"Quote:
It is the vertebrae of the lower part of the neck and not the upper neck vertebrae.
Quote:
Neck! Vertebrae! I knew it!
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. And it's not vertebrae (plural). It's one side of one vertebra where the channel for the nerve is narrowing and has a little spur."
But your claim doesn't involve pictures, of course, so I guess we should just forget it.

I've convinced myself that there is a possible ability and I've convinced myself that there is reason to proceed toward further, and more proper, testing, and this is based on an apparent good accuracy in past experiences. The fact that you say that I've convinced myself of having an ability is just false and unfounded because it is not true. I will accept a result of a formal test that indicates no ESP ability. The objective of my investigation is to find out the source of the medical perceptions, or just whether ESP or not, as well as what the accuracy in fact is under a test setting. A test that indicates "no ESP ability" is not a failed test. Such a test has acchieved the objective, that is to find out.

My concern is that when a test of live persons doesn't work out for you, you will simply change your claim and say the test merely established your limits.

 

[Ashles]

JWideman - that's a very good point.

Why are we not concentrating entirely on the cereal expriement?

Anita has already shown she is happy with it as a test of her ability, and it is controllable and easily run independently. It also involves the organic aspect that Anita has described as stongest for her.

Anita do you have any objection to the cereal testing with ECarlson or IIG?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Well, the way I think about it is that an ESP ability can be shown to not exist, or to exist,

Yes or No: Has it been established that green and purple mammoth does NOT live on the UNCC campus?

Yes or No: Has it been established this green and purple mammoth did NOT put an implant in your head that is causing you to have delusions?

I expect serious answers to these questions. I've taken the liberty of writing your response for you by using your own words.

We can be in a situation where neither has been established just yet. If it is shown to not exist, it has been falsified. If we've had tests that can not conclude ESP ability mammoth , yet did not conclude no ESP ability mammoth, then we have failed to dismiss an ESP ability a mammoth. It makes perfect sense to me.

Anita, the number of green and purple mammoths spotted on the UNCC campus is exactly the same as the number of scientifically proven cases of ESP.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita, here's some advice that I think just about everyone will agree is solid:

When confronted with a variety things to test, do the easiest ones first. The results may help you tackle the more difficult ones.

You've already eliminated photographs and video as part of your ability. Now let's confirm or eliminate identifying chemicals outside of the human body. This one is very easy to test. We've already explained how to do it.

Doing this test would be an incredible demonstration of good faith on your part. You would earn my respect as well as that of others. Hell, even James Randi would be impressed if a claimant like yourself actually took the advice of experts and performed a real test.

 

[skeen]

I just wanted to checkin at this stage, to express once more than I see absolutely no difference between Anita and other claimants. It was said that her cooperation is what separated her, but I'm seeing little of that as of late.

Little of real, tangible cooperation that would genuinely work toward establishing an ability.

She is absolutely indistinguishable from other claimants, who drag it all out, who apologize for failed tests, and inevitably walk away defeated, self-deluded in their success.

Anita, you seem to think that proving "no ability" should be as conclusive as proving an ability. Don't you realize that no ability is the default? We conclude that given no evidence whatsoever, you have no ability.

If is clear to me that other than being self-deluded, you're actually lying about what you think you're able to do. Take actually seeing muscle, etc. like an X-ray; this is an instantly testable claim, that you can confirm with relative ease.

You were at a skeptics meeting. Surely you must have seen through people then? That would have been the perfect time to tell people what you saw. As you say, it's not a big deal to you; it's a regular occurrence.

If you were wrong in what you said, then right there and then, you have proven to yourself that you have no ability. If you were right, you would be on a very good road toward proving your claimed abilities.

I have to concur with others that the view that you don't treat your ability as special, and neither do your family or friends absolutely laughable, and ludicrous. I question your very intelligence with crazy logic like that. What utter nonsense.

You seem to fail to realize that if you have this ability, to reiterate, you would be the most incredible person in the history of the entire world. As if people would treat such an incredible, and downright magical ability nonchalantly.

People are pushing for a test, but I'd like to see something. Just something. I can see a cup, and say, "look, that's a cup". Do the same to a skeptic, without cold-reading them, and tell them what you see, if you see something. If you don't, don't make a claim - you just give yourself room for apologetics (which you've done a few times in this thread alone). Just say what you see.

As of right now, you have no ability as far as anyone is concerned. I'm starting to feel more and more sorry for you as I see you cling tightly on to the vague possibility that you have it, a possibility that only you can see, for reasons you should discuss with a psychiatrist.

 

[stanfr]

Skeen, i agree 100% with what you said. If she spent 1% of the time that she has spent responding to all the posts here actually doing a 'reading' on someone with credibility and influence, she'd already be a household name and this thread would be moot. And how many years has she had to build that reputation? That's why i say the real talent here is the ability to attract 17,000 views and 700+ replies without a shred of real action, just words.