Vision From Feeling

[Moochie]

And we haven't even gotten to the hatch yet...


M.

 

[Locknar]

Pup:

Quote:
So you're saying you can look at an unidentified medicine, and say what effect it will have on an average healthy person?
It is something I experience. I do experience perceiving medical effects when I look at an unknown medicine or substance, and I have experienced correlation to their actual effects, but only a test can conclude whether this in fact takes place or not. Until a test indicates something, treat it as just anecdotes.

Given you've claimed this gives you headaches and nausea, it must be unbearable for you to enter a drug store.

Does this apply to "medicine" only, or everything in general? For example, if you were to look at a bottle of whiskey would you perceive any effects? What about say ground beef?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Dear Skeptics,
Here is a wall of text lovingly composed in response to the beautiful wall of text you all so thoughtfully put together for me. What better gift from me than the very same.

nathan:

That you need a person in front of you to have perceptions of their organs (or whatever), is not evidence that the perceptions of their organs (or whatever) is not a hallucination.
On your own, you cannot prove you are not having hallucinations.
I've known someone who had auditory hallucinations, it was utterly impossible to convince them that they were hallucinating.

Going by the three definitions of hallucination that were posted here on the thread, the perceptions were by those definitions not defined as hallucinations. I suppose neither of us then are qualified to diagnose what the perceptions are. And on the contrary to this person you knew, I have not concluded that the perceptions would be something entirely reality based, I consider them to be impressions that so far have shown good correlation with alleged actual health information, and I am perfectly capable of embracing evidence that reveals what they are.

Locknar:
When I said, "When did I jump to false conclusions?", you said that I had done so by stating that I have synesthesia. I did the online evaluation at www.synesthete.org which concluded that I do in fact have synesthesia.

UncaYimmy:

You're avoiding the question: If you performed at a level no better than chance, would you conclude that your perceptions are the result of something ordinary rather than the extraordinary claim of sensing vibrational information?

I can't believe this! Not again! Since I've specificly answered this question every time it has been posted, again and again, on this thread, I refuse to answer it again, just because I say so. I will have to make you go back to previous pages, scroll and search, until you come across at least one of the places where I've clearly and specificly answered to this question, with a simple and straightforward 'yes'. I've answered this already! I don't avoid questions!

We've been teaching. You're not learning. Go back and re-read my explanations about eliminating known phenomena.

And the elimination of known phenomena is applied in the upcoming study!

Seriously. What's the point of the website if not to provide evidence?

There is no formal evidence yet to provide. The purpose of my website is to inform about my experience with the medical perceptions and about the work behind having it scientifically tested. Once evidence for or against is attained, it will of course be posted there.

Again, nonsense. It's only an ordeal because you refuse to go about it properly. Everybody here has told you that they would have been tested years ago and done it properly.

I only started this investigation a year and a half ago, and more than a year of this time was engaged in a waiting game with the IIG (which is still in progress). And as soon as local skeptics explained to me that I need to form a clearer claim I embraced the idea of conducting a study which leads to forming a stronger and clearer claim. Then there was the concern of how to check for accuracy without harming volunteers, and that is a problem you (thank you very much) have found a way around. I am working on it. Just not as fast as some might ask of me. Impatience, not incompetence. That's all.

2) You did not research the prevalence of peanut oil before claiming that frying with it was unusual.

My claim that peanut oil is unusual is an absolutely correct statement, since it is unusual based on my background and experience. And that is a correct statement. Even though I don't have evidence of this, but I guess I could gather up everyone I ever knew in Sweden and have them mail us a description of what oil they use, and then have some of our more statistically knowledgeable members give us a professional analysis and get back with the results.

4) You did not research the location of the small intestine before incorrectly claiming that you spotted a problem with it at a location where it couldn't possibly exist.

I was describing what I perceived, pure and simple. Any research into human anatomy and illness would not have changed what I saw.

People grounded in reality who experience the unusual do not look to the supernatural for explanations without at least eliminating all the natural causes including being mistaken or self-deceiving.

BUT I KNOW THAT!! I've had everyday experiences where I look at a person and perceive images and then describe my perception of their health, and have had incredible cases of accuracy. I am therefore now proceeding to have proper tests that eliminate cold reading, so I am doing exactly what I am supposed to do. All I see here on this thread is the impatience from you guys. You criticize me for various things that I have not done and should have done, when in fact I am proceeding toward doing those exact things. The only concern here is impatience.

TheSkepticCanuck:

It is not the length of the "wall of text" that people complain about. It is the lack of useful and relevant information in any of them and the lack of progress shown in them that people complain about.

As long as you guys post nonsense, my replies will be nonsense too. Nonsense like whether I'm from Sweden or not, false accusations that I am delusional when then it turns out that according to the definition I am not, and a lot of garbage like that. I never get a chance to post useful information. Lack of progress? Impatience.

However, don't keep writing long walls of text just to rehash the same points over and over again.

And the very same goes to you skeptics. I keep receiving the same questions over and over again, like UncaYimmy previously asking me the same question I've already answered many times before with a very clear and concise 'yes'. However that gives me a great idea to prepare a FrequentlyAskedQuestions for my website. And when ever someone asks a questions that has been asked and answered in the past, all I have to do is refer them to that page. Brilliant, and time saving.

The only new answers to previously addressed issues should be to clear up misunderstandings from the previous posts

And this consumes a lot of time and thread-space. There are a lot of misunderstandings here one after the other.

As for the psychological assessment, this would be a good idea for a number of reasons, the best reason for you would probably be that if you had it done, and got a clean bill of health, then you could put that issue to rest once and for all, and that possible explanation would be taken off the table. Part of scientific exploration is eliminating alternate theories in a scientific manner until all possibilities but the truth have been eliminated.

I agree with that, it is a good idea.

A good scientist does not reject possible explanations arbitrarily, just because they do not fit their pet theories. Modify the theory to fit the evidence. Do not modify the evidence to fit the theory.

What you guys don't realize is that my anecdotes took place as described, or at least it is part of my claim that they did. Of course they are not evidence for ESP, but they allow for this investigation to take place.

 

[desertgal]

false accusations that I am delusional when and then it turns out that according to the definition I am not

The surest way to incorrectly diagnose a possible mental disorder is to self diagnose it.

You ARE delusional. The definition of delusional describes you perfectly. The only person here who doesn't see that is you - because you are delusional.

And 'round and 'round we go.

Among the classic symptoms of most personality disorders is denial and/or self deception. Usually, it takes a direct intervention for the person to get help. But, don't worry. I'm sure you'll be hearing from your student advisor very soon.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once stated, through the character of Sherlock Holmes, "Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I snipped all the solid advice. I just wanted to mention that Doyle was a spiritualist who believed in fairies. This only goes to show that you need to do more than just pay lip service to the scientific method.

Yeah, he had his faults, but he did give us fingerprinting as a means of identification, and using plaster to make casts of footprints, so I can let the woo aspects of his personality slide, especially since he's dead and can't correct it, no matter how much we prove him wrong. Besides, he didn't go wacky until he had several tragedies in his life. Before that time, he was an inventive investigator and did some great things.

 

[nathan]

nathan:
... I have not concluded that the perceptions would be something entirely reality based, I consider them to be impressions that so far have shown good correlation with alleged actual health information, and I am perfectly capable of embracing evidence that reveals what they are.

I see you're incapable of recognizing contradiction.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

However, don't keep writing long walls of text just to rehash the same points over and over again.

And the very same goes to you skeptics. I keep receiving the same questions over and over again, like UncaYimmy previously asking me the same question I've already answered many times before with a very clear and concise 'yes'. However that gives me a great idea to prepare a FrequentlyAskedQuestions for my website. And when ever someone asks a questions that has been asked and answered in the past, all I have to do is refer them to that page. Brilliant, and time saving.

There you go. That would work just fine. That is exactly what a FAQ is for.

A good scientist does not reject possible explanations arbitrarily, just because they do not fit their pet theories. Modify the theory to fit the evidence. Do not modify the evidence to fit the theory.

What you guys don't realize is that my anecdotes took place as described, or at least it is part of my claim that they did. Of course they are not evidence for ESP, but they allow for this investigation to take place.

I was not referring to previous claims. I was giving this advice for use in the study and all future testing of various claims. If the evidence provided through the study and testing does not support the theory, then the theory needs to be thrown out the window, so to speak, and a new theory formed, based on the currently available evidence.

 

[Locknar]

Locknar:
When I said, "When did I jump to false conclusions?", you said that I had done so by stating that I have synesthesia. I did the online evaluation at www.synesthete.org which concluded that I do in fact have synesthesia.

Taking a test on the Internet, self diagnoses, or wishing does not make it so. You have not been medically diagnosed by a neurologist.

 

[Locknar]

I see you're incapable of recognizing contradiction.

Why does this thread make me wanna corn dog?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Tabarnaque!

 

[skeen]

Sorry, even though I vowed not to post in this thread anymore, a couple of things peaked my interest:

It has been a year and a half since you embarked on this, and have still proven absolutely nothing? For Christ sake, Anita! Simply walk up to someone who is likely to be skeptical and tell them what you see!!! The rest will fall into place. This is crazy! Pick any of the professors in your University!

It is also extremely suspect that you claim to have told, and or demonstrated this ability to professor(s), and none of them have followed up on it. What the hell should that tell you? This is the greatest discovery in all of human history!

And your insistence on having synesthesia is just plain bizarre. You certainly haven't convinced me that you have it, and you still have no medical diagnoses for it. This is out-of-this-world irrationality. Why should we believe you have synesthesia when you are so clearly lying, or deluded about so many other aspects of what you're claiming? It is this one claim that leads me to believe that more than being delusional, you're a compulsive liar.

And all of this, and we're only at the stage where you're gearing up for a study. Not even a test. Not even a simple test. No, a study, which will conclude nothing that we haven't already learned by now.

This ability should work on animals. If it doesn't, well that makes no goddamn sense whatsoever. It should, though. So to ease some of your false concerns, how about you go and ask pet owners when you "see" ailments in pets? You're always right, afterall. If you are correct, they will be hugely impressed, and again, everything will fall into place. You'll be on the news by the end of the week.

If you're wrong, simply say thank you and walk on. Nothing bad will happen.

Anita, you are not going to do any of what I have suggested. You're going to have concerns, and reasons why you can't do this, and they're going to seem legitimate in your mind. But read this carefully: they are not legitimate concerns. Your mind is preventing you from discovering you have no special abilities. Please, wake up.

It is beyond the point where I am fascinated by your mental condition. I am actually sort of concerned. I can see the wall of logical separation that is fighting you, preventing you from discovering the truth, and so can everyone else.

Why won't you do as I suggested, and end all of this? Really, really, really think about it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Locknar:
When I said, "When did I jump to false conclusions?", you said that I had done so by stating that I have synesthesia. I did the online evaluation at www.synesthete.org which concluded that I do in fact have synesthesia.

1) This was *after* you made the claim. You made the conclusion first, then looked for evidence.

2) And the test did not "conclude" anything. It ranked your score as synesthetic. That's not a conclusion.

3) The test is unreliable. Log in as JimOnBass at azwebpages.com with the password VFF. You will see that I was able to score as synesthetic as well.

The next step for you is to take the test that *I* designed because the ability is unique to the individual, so the test must be tailored to the individual. My test won't allow some moderately clever fellow like myself to fake a synesthetic score.

I can't believe this! Not again! Since I've specificly answered this question every time it has been posted, again and again, on this thread, I refuse to answer it again, just because I say so.

Okay. I will ask the moderators to close the moderated interview thread since you refuse to answer the question again despite your willingness to answer the questions about your ability for the umpteenth time. The whole purpose of the thread was to give a clear cut explanation of your claims without having to wade through the 1,000+ posts.

I guess the experiment proved it wasn't worth the effort.

My claim that peanut oil is unusual is an absolutely correct statement, since it is unusual based on my background and experience. And that is a correct statement. Even though I don't have evidence of this, but I guess I could gather up everyone I ever knew in Sweden and have them mail us a description of what oil they use, and then have some of our more statistically knowledgeable members give us a professional analysis and get back with the results.

First, you were wrong. Period. Peanut oil is sold in three gallon containers at Wal Mart, so obviously it cannot be unusual.

Your defense is that YOUR background is limited. That doesn't change a wrong answer.

The issue here is the scientific method. Don't assume anything. If you're going to make a claim about something, know your facts. It would have taken you 30 seconds to type "Peanut Oil" into Google and found out just how commonly it is used and sold.

I was describing what I perceived, pure and simple. Any research into human anatomy and illness would not have changed what I saw.

So why even bother with any testing? You were wrong about seeing the intestine where you did.

Fact is, you didn't see what you thought you saw and you incorrectly interpreted what you say you saw. You're telling a guy to get his heart checked out based on what you saw, but if you can't tell what an intestine looks like and where it is, how can you tell what fatty tissue caused by peanut oil looks like?

You're not arguing rationally.

BUT I KNOW THAT!! I've had everyday experiences where I look at a person and perceive images and then describe my perception of their health, and have had incredible cases of accuracy.

Incredible accuracy? You have told people that what you are doing is not to be taken seriously, then asked them to confirm what you said.

And as is clearly evident here, you turn misses into hits. You don't believe it, but everyone else does. You're unreliable when it comes to reporting results.

So, we're left with unreliable results reported unreliably. That does not incredible cases of accuracy make.

I am therefore now proceeding to have proper tests that eliminate cold reading, so I am doing exactly what I am supposed to do.

Actually, you're not. You should be testing all of the more easily tested claims first like chemical identification, crystals, tasting, vibrational algebra and reading photographs rather than asking a bunch of strangers to devote time to helping you.

If those simple tests fail (and they will), then nobody will want to spend time testing your medical claims. We all know that. Is that why you are refusing and making excuses? It seems like it.

All I see here on this thread is the impatience from you guys. You criticize me for various things that I have not done and should have done, when in fact I am proceeding toward doing those exact things. The only concern here is impatience.

You have not shown good faith in taking our advice. I could give numerous examples, but I grow weary of this.

What you guys don't realize is that my anecdotes took place as described, or at least it is part of my claim that they did. Of course they are not evidence for ESP, but they allow for this investigation to take place.

Stop trying to convince us that what you have presented is worthy of investigating. It's not. Seriously. We have explained all of the other things should have done already that would have kept you from reaching this point. I refuse to go through them again.

Truth is, not one person here has expressed any inkling that your abilities have a remote chance of being real. The only reason that I, for one, want to see you get tested is to prove you wrong in the hopes that you will learn from this experience.

I speak for many when I say we just want you to see what we already know with a practical certainty: You are not special. You are but one of many who have believed themselves to have a unique, never before seen abilities who, through a lack of critical thinking and with a touch of narcissism, refused to admit the truth.

Harsh? Yes. Honest. Yes.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Taking a test on the Internet, self diagnoses, or wishing does not make it so. You have not been medically diagnosed by a neurologist.

Go to www.synesthete.org. Log in as JimOnBass at azwebpages.com with the password VFF. You will see that I was able to score as synesthetic as well. Very well, I might add. BTW, what I did was not a programming hack. I just knew what they were looking for.

I took two tests. I could have done it on my first test as well, but I clicked prematurely (first time since my teen years).

Professor Yaffle said, "If anyone cares, I looked at Anita's synesthesia test results, and in only one section did her score fall within what would be expected for a synesthete, the others put her in the range of the normal population."

When you take the test, it asks you *which* types of synesthesia you have. There are many such as numbers-color, letters-color, musical notes-color, musical chords-color, sound-color, etc. She obviously checked more than one and took multiple tests. She failed but one.

The only purpose of the test is to decide whether it might be worth testing somebody further. It's a very good eliminator, though. Further testing is needed to confirm the ability. The additional tests of which I am aware would make cheating like I did very difficult.

Thus we have proven that she cannot differentiate imagination from reality in several cases, which does not bode well for her in further tests. She *could* be a synesthete in one area, but it's very unlikely she is in the other areas. Of course, she reports the results saying that she's a synesthete. Unscientific at best, misleading at worst.

But the point still stands: She believed she was a multiple synesthete, but the testing showed otherwise.

I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

 

[wardenclyffe]

UncaYimmy,

As an early defender of the moderated thread experiment, I must point out that there's no need for the moderators to close the thread. Since you and VfF are the only ones who can post in it, it's effectively closed already (unless she or you decide to revive it). Also, the experiment did NOT prove that it was not worth the effort. The effort proved that no further effort was necessary.

And thanks for the effort.

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy,

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

Shhhhh......

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ah, I love to see you guys talk amongst yourselves so nicely and answer each others' questions.
That's right, annihilate each other engage in productive conversation. Keep up the good work, while I've snuck away to work on arranging the study.

UncaYimmy, I've sent you PM's about wanting to speak with you alone. I am typing up the documents for the study and would love to have a chance to speak with you. I'll find an online chat room for us from which we can copy the discussion and make it available for all those curious Forum members.

 

[Hokulele]

VfF, how much do you know about cold reading, and what do you think it entails?

 

[Belz...]

Tabarnaque!

Ben voyons... d'où ça vient, ça ?

 

[Belz...]

Ah, I love to see you guys talk amongst yourselves so nicely and answer each others' questions.
That's right, annihilate each other engage in productive conversation. Keep up the good work, while I've snuck away to work on arranging the study.

Yeah, still waiting on that.

You haven't answered my question, by the way:

I have experienced correlation between my medical perceptions and actual health conditions. Not because I think so. Not because I believe so. Not because I want it to be so. But because it's been so.

How in the blue hell COULD you tell the difference between those possibilities unless you TEST for them ? You keep saying that you're open to be tested and proven wrong but your posts betray you and tell a different story.

 

[desertgal]

Ah, I love to see you guys talk amongst yourselves so nicely and answer each others' questions.
That's right, annihilate each other engage in productive conversation. Keep up the good work, while I've snuck away to work on arranging the study.

Delusional troll babble speak.

UncaYimmy, I've sent you PM's about wanting to speak with you alone. I am typing up the documents for the study and would love to have a chance to speak with you. I'll find an online chat room for us from which we can copy the discussion and make it available for all those curious Forum members.

Everyone who might be curious, raise your hands.

However that gives me a great idea to prepare a FrequentlyAskedQuestions for my website. And when ever someone asks a questions that has been asked and answered in the past, all I have to do is refer them to that page. Brilliant, and time saving.

OMG! That is a brilliant idea! I am just astonished that no one had ever thought of doing a FAQ page on their website until Anita applied her brilliant, scientific, synesthetic, extraterrestrial incarnated mind to the issue.