Vision From Feeling

[Uncayimmy]

Forget ethics and the apparent inconsistencies with the complaints about plagiarism, the whole thing doesn't make the slightest bit of sense anyway. Think about it. Anita is claiming to have an ability that no-one else has ever been shown to posses. Her studies, vibrational algebra, inventions and so on are all apparently based on and around those abilities. How could anyone possibly plagiarise that? This other student could steal her claims, but they couldn't possible reproduce her actual abilities unless they happened to posses them as well. Why is Anita complaining about plagiarism when she should instead be celebrating the discovery of the only other person she has met who shares her miraculous abilities?

In a thread full of contradictory and nonsensical claims, this one really is special.

In our Facebook chat Anita made quite a fuss about winning the Nobel prize. At first I thought she might have been teasing, but as she continued I concluded she seemed quite serious about it. I informed her that even if some freak chance her abilities were real, she would not be getting the Nobel. The scientist who studied her would.

This did not go over well at well. I sent her a list of diseases and conditions named after the doctors who discovered them rather than the patients who first presented with them. This was met with much consternation.

I also explained that she could not research herself. I tried to make her understand even if everything was real (though it's not), evidence she presents about herself is completely unreliable. A researcher will need to perform the investigations if they are to have any credibility. And, of course, that person will receive a lot of the credit. I teasingly told her that since I was instrumental in her initial testing that I would receive a lot of the credit. She didn't like that but conceded that I have been very helpful.

Her mood improved greatly when I told her she could still make the talk show circuit and demonstrate her abilities.

It's all very strange. Cuddles, you've been around here a while. While Anita demonstrates many of the characteristics of typical claimants, she doesn't seem typical in a lot of ways (at least to me). What's your take?

 

[Hokulele]

Cuddles:
Your entire post #1198 is an insult against yourself as an alleged objective critical thinker disguised as a skeptic, and is tremendous violence against all that science stands for. I have consistently replied to a vast variety of nonsense in this thread and always in a friendly manner, but this time and for the first time it is impossible for me to do so. Your post is such a hideous composition of misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and incapability in reading the written word for what it actually says. Your post is an expression of your confusion and incompetence in following in a discussion.

Referring to your denial to let me use the word "perception" about my experience,

Long before you stepped in, Ashles and I had a very long discussion where she concluded that I must use the word "perception" to describe my experience. So that is the word I've been using. Now here you come along with your very own vocabulary and attack me for using a word that was chosen by Ashles. You specificly said that the word "perception" would imply belief in the perceptions, when it was thoroughly discussed that "perception" would imply no belief in the perceptions. Refusal to listen? I listened, adopted the word "perception", and now I listen, and you want me to not say perception? I'm not pretending! You skeptics are collectively inconsistent in your definitions on terminology, and then you throw it at me! Of course I'm upset. I am once again criticized when I've done nothing wrong. Blame Ashles for choosing the word "perceptions". All I see is your refusal to read what I've actually said before you make statements about what I've said.

Rather than simply reading and responding to what Cuddles had to say regarding the word "perception", you are shifting the blame to Ashles and the rest of the skeptics? The "innocent me" act is starting to wear a bit thin. Instead of reacting and/or overreacting to posts such as these, you may want to consider why these types of semantic issues seem to prevent any progress on your claims.

<snipped>

I accept criticism...

Really? I haven't seen this demonstrated yet in this thread. Rather than accepting and incorporating criticisms of your claims and your methods of investigating your claims, I have only seen examples of evasion, excuses, and misdirection.

Sorry to sound so harsh, but if you acctually accepted criticism, we might have seen a completed study as well as at least one rigorous test by this point. Several protocols have been offered, and the ones you have describe have been examined, all to no avail.

 

[Jonquill]

"Her mood improved greatly when I told her she could still make the talk show circuit and demonstrate her abilities."

Maybe Anita will be the new Sylvia Browne?

 

[desertgal]

You need professional help because you seem to have some form of serious dyslexia that makes you get everything you read all mixed up, and you express schizotypal disorder by pretending you can contribute to critical thinking when clearly you can not.

Oh, would you stop parroting the term "schizotypal disorder"? You clearly have no idea what it means.

Your entire post to Cuddles is histrionic and ridiculous. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

In our Facebook chat Anita made quite a fuss about winning the Nobel prize. At first I thought she might have been teasing, but as she continued I concluded she seemed quite serious about it. I informed her that even if some freak chance her abilities were real, she would not be getting the Nobel. The scientist who studied her would.

Skeen said: "And the quantum, and vibrational jargon is just outright embarrassing. If you had any data to support this, you'd be more than eligible for the nobel prize, and you'd win it." I don't think he realized she'd take it quite that seriously.

Jeez, Anita, the Nobel Committee has a website. You can look up their criteria there before you envision yourself in Stockholm.

Her mood improved greatly when I told her she could still make the talk show circuit and demonstrate her abilities.

Shocker, that.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita, Cuddles is bringing up some very solid points that I have alluded to in my posts as well. Your beliefs about yourself have not changed one iota. You have changed some of the language, but it appears only to be in an effort to placate us.

For example, take your use of the term apparent accuracy. What you really mean by that is, "I seemingly knew things I couldn't have possibly known." This is patently false.

You have repeatedly told us that you read only family and close friends. This means that you know quite a lot of information about them. You have seen them moving around, which provides numerous physical clues. You know how they usually look, so it's easy to notice something different. You learn their moods, and mood is an indicator that something is wrong physically. You have talked with them countless times. You have talked about them with other people. You socialize with them in the same area. That's an incredible amount of knowledge.

Therefore, every single one of your anecdotes could be easily explained by cold reading. And by cold reading I mean prior knowledge and observation. I made several accurate readings about you. As I explained to you, some of them were just "feelings" or impressions. Thing is, I actually take the time to reason out why I have such an impression. You, by contrast, form imagery in your mind and ascribe it to the supernatural.

Thus, "couldn't possibly have known" is really "could very easily have learned from cold reading."

The second issue is that you "seemingly know" because the people tell you so. Right off the bat I will remind you that you have told us repeatedly that you tell people not to take what you're doing seriously. If they follow your advice, then everything they tell you is unreliable.

Beyond that, you are a charming person. You're attractive. You're persistent. And you refuse to accept answers you don't like. It is not in the best interests for people to answer you honestly.

What you really have are unreliable confirmations about information you could have easily learned through ordinary means. And it seems the only way for you to convince yourself of this is to ask strangers to run studies so you can ask other strangers to divulge private health information.

That is rampant denial at best and an irrational denial of reality at worst.

Of course, you will come back with, "what about the images I see?" What about them? I asked you if you knew what a Labrador retriever was. You excitedly told me that in your mind you saw vivid and detailed images about this kind of dog. Plenty of people do the same thing when presented with certain information. Your mind is constructing the images in your claim the exact same way.

Of course, your answer to that is, "Well, how could I possibly know this information to create the images." And thus the circular argument is formed.

There is a perfectly rational explanation for what you experience. You are acting irrationally by believing your are unique among humans instead of accepting that your experiences can be easily explained. You are acting irrationally by concocting explanations that are self contradictory ("vibrational information" about the subject in a photo or video are not captured or displayed with our technology).

Of course, your answer to that is, "That's why I want to get tested." Well, what are we testing? We're testing to see if you are unique among all humans. This confirms that you do not accept the rational explanations. And it proves what you really mean by apparent accuracy.

It's all very strange and a bit scary.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Since we've been discussing vibrational algebra, her secretiveness, and her desire for recognition, here's a quote from the moderated thread that I think ties it all together.

Don't forget that I also see bacteria. The interesting thing is that I can download the vibrational aspect of a bacteria and experiment in my mind by applying different types of vibrations to it to see for instance what would kill it. I can then translate the effective vibration into a corresponding light structure (to be generated with electronic instruments) or a chemical medicine, or other large scale, "real" things (as if vibration weren't real, but some of you might think so). This way I've invented a hypothesis for a treatment method for the flesh eating bacteria that I want someone to study but to give me the credit of its discovery.

Anita, just post your hypothesis. You'll get the credit since it will be documented here first. Or you can continue to let people suffer.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:
Post #1200, of course I fully understand that test conditions will be implemented that disable the possibility of cold reading. What I was saying is that when I form a paranormal claim, it describes what specificly I claim to be able to do. If I have not had experience with a person behind a screen, then I can not agree to a paranormal test where a person is behind a screen until I have tried out that particular test condition so that I know whether it can be part of my claim or not. If the perceptions cease when cold reading is disabled then I can not present a claim that is in accordance with the required test conditions. Which of course would lead me to withdrawing the paranormal claim and concluding that nothing paranormal is taking place, or that something paranormal might take place but only takes place while non-paranormal means are also available therefore making it a non-testable claim and a paranormal ability can not be established. I know this statement will be misunderstood again, but I've tried.

This is why the test cannot simply be set up however you personally choose.

Of course not. However as a claimant I am required to make the initial suggestion on the test protocol, at which claimant and testing organization commence protocol negotiations to reach a protocol that both parties can agree to. Before I can agree to for instance a screen, I need to find out whether I can claim for the perceptions to occur with a screen. If it is decided that the claim can not be tested without a screen, and I can not perform with a screen, then I will withdraw my paranormal claim from investigation and conclude that a paranormal phenomenon has already been falsified.

You'd have thought he would have actually been interested in being involved. You would have thought that, if he believed you, he would be badgering you day and night to test this further.
It is totally incomprehensible that an expert in Physics could hear such a story and believe it and then completely ignore it.
So he either didn't believe you.
Or it never happened. (And what happened to the other two professors?)

Really. Even after I've explained that I am in process of arranging a test with an organization that specializes in testing for paranormal claims, a professor should in your mind want to take over. And I've already stated that I don't think that any of these three professors "believed that I have a paranormal ability" because I don't have any formal evidence. All I've said is that I've described to them my experience and my arranging for tests. I did speak to them but I won't let my school be dragged into this mess of a skeptical conversation on this thread, so don't try to trick me into bringing some kind of evidence that we spoke. The fact that I confided in professors is irrelevant to the investigation since they will have no involvement and so the credibility of this is also irrelevant. You guys don't even believe that I'm from Sweden.

I notice we are never told what his actual response was.

I already made a post on this thread where I explained the response of these professors. Please find it yourself.

Other than he agreed it was Vibrational Algebra.

They have agreed to no such thing. Stop lying and making false assumptions or trying to drag my university into this.

So you approach skeptical web forums but not universities?

That's right. I'm already involved in letting the IIG West test my claim. So what more I can do is to get to know more about my experience and about paranormal investigations and that is why I've consulted skeptics who spend quite a bit of time in this very matter. There is a compliment in here somewhere for you guys, but, you find it yourself. If you read between the lines like you all love to do (and this time accurately), you'll see it.

They would have to approach you? And then be told it's all secret so you can't tell them anything anyway.

My theories behind how this might work, unless it is something ordinary taking place like cold reading that I am not aware of, are not required in order for me to explain my experiences and for test design. Besides it was already agreed on this thread that theories will not be discussed.

You refuse to describe standard current Optical Equipment that might be relevent to this claim?
Yes this really adds to your credibility and credentials.

My refusal to discuss unrelevant topics that do nothing to progress the investigation does not in my mind take away from my credibility as a paranormal claimant.

Why not contact a University? Then you could get proper scientific testing? I'm interested. Why won't you do that?

After meeting with the local skeptics group I realized that it is beneficial if I conduct a study into the perceptions to learn more about my claim, so that it will be easier to form a test. To take an everyday experience and place it into a laboratory type test requires some extra insight into the experienced phenomena. After the study, and if the claim has not been falsified by the study, then of course anyone whether a university or a skeptical testing organization is welcome to test the better formulated claim.

(Another University obviously since you have stated a bizarre and inexplicable refusal to use the University you are currently studying at to look at the amazing ability you claim to have)

I will not mix my personal investigation of an unconventional topic that usually has negative connotation, with my professional life and career.

So the only other test you will agree to is that you can be sick? Funny how none of this appeared in your original claim or on your website.

The headache and nausea during chemical identification tests is something that I experienced only after I was forcing myself to make tens of perceptions within a short period of time when I was testing an infrequent experience. My initial descriptions of experience with chemical identification perceptions regarded perceptions that come on their own and are not forced, so there was no way to include these discomforts then as they had not taken place.

So how many can you do before the nausea and headache kick in?
Even if it were one per day then a test could be built around it.
If you really wanted to test this.
But of course you don't.

That's exactly what you are supposed to be asking. It is better for me to do very few trials and spaced across time. I do not know what my comfort-zone would be. I need to try it, but my main priority now is on the upcoming study and on the main claim.

Well that's fine and agreed. But elsewhere you insist we accept your anecdotes as having happened to you and trust your stories and descriptions.
Which we can't without unbiased evidence.

No, what I say is, "trust that I believe that the anecdotes happened and that that is why I am compelled to further investigation", and I also say that "I know the anecdotes are not formal evidence, but they are evidence to me".

I think they [local skeptics group?] would rather see properly conducted independent testing.

No, I was specificly advised to learn more about the perceptions in order to become better able to suggest a clear-cut test protocol.

Still we will see what your 'study' shows.
Although I am feeling strangely psychic about that - it either
1. won't happen or
2. it will happen and apparently confirm your abilities or
3. it will happen and won't entirely confirm your abilities yet through lengthy rationalisations and redefinitions and vagueness of descriptions it somehow then will confirm your abilities

The study will definitely happen since it is the next step in this investigation. If you carefully read my list of objectives for the study at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html it clearly states that the study can not conclude in favor of a paranormal ability no matter how "accurate" the results may appear to be, since cold reading is available on the study and thus the study can only lead to what I call apparent accuracy, which is not real or actual accuracy. The purpose of the study is to learn more about the perceptions so that it will be easier to devise a test. Another objective is that it provides a non-ability the opportunity to be revealed as such. Please read the study.html page.

I presented an example of what I mean by vibrational algebra.

Completely and totally untrue. Link to the post in which you did so.

On the first page of this thread and before you even appeared,
Post #34 which was even titled Vibrational algebra, and my 12th post ever, gives examples such as

"When I've downloaded the vibrational aspect of a bacteria for instance, I can use this information with algebra in my mind. ILLNESS + CURE = HEALTHY Well, since I know what the illness feels like, not just the bacteria itself but all of the adjoining tissues and reactions that are related to it, and I know what healthy feels like, doing algebra to find that HEALTHY - ILLNESS = CURE By superimposing the vibrational aspect of the illness with the vibrational aspect of the healthy body, the vibrational aspects combine on their own and in my mind I am looking at a brand new vibrational aspect that did not come from observations, but that I can then take and translate into its corresponding structure and the things that it represents."

"My favorite example, that I have yet to test in a lab, is that Helicobacter which causes stomach ulcers, can be destroyed with Calcium Carbonate, and from a preliminary point of view this is interesting enough to test."​

"I can also do addition. By adding the vibrational aspect of an unknown medicine that I am looking at and adding it to the vibrational aspect of a human body, I can observe the vibrational aspect of their combination and translate it into what the effects of that medicine is on the body. I have had amazing results."​

"I once looked at an unknown pill. I felt its vibrational aspect and combined it with the vibrational aspect of a human body in general to observe the results. I felt that the medicine is in fact a dangerous liver-toxin, and that the body responds with panic by flushing it out of the body and the kidneys with absolutely heaps of water, to the point of nearly dehydrating itself just to get rid of it. The only possible benefit of this process that I could think of, was that it might be a diuretic. And surely it was. If I had access to prescription drugs and a pharmacy, I would love to try a test on medicines! Medicines have very strong vibrational aspects compared to most naturally occurring substances since the structures of medicines look and feel very artificial and abnormal in many cases. And since I can combine them with the feeling of the body, I can make additional observations that provide strong clues as to what they are. This is something that is more difficult to do with other chemicals or materials such as coins."​

"I don't know whether I can do more complicated math with these vibrational aspects, so please don't ask me to try multiplication, division, logarithms, exponentials or Taylor expansions on these things!"​

Page 6 post #217, by then you had already become a well-known figure in our thread,

"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." ​

"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." ​

Page 7 post #243 also explains, that,

"Vibrational algebra is when I combine in my mind the individual vibrational aspects that I perceive of different things. I experience these merging and interacting to yield a resulting vibrational aspect which I can then translate into corresponding real-world objects. It works just like algebra, I can add or subtract vibrational aspects in my mind. I have not applied this in a scientific setting yet but will apply it heavily later on in my career. I even intend to try to build an instrument that calculates with vibrational information." ​

Then on page 25 you ask me in your post #993 to give examples of vibrational algebra, and you asked again on page 26 in your post #1003. I assumed that since I had already answered regarding vibrational algebra in my everyday meaning, that this was not satisfactory to you and that you were asking about how I intend to try to introduce it to conventional mathematics, science and instruments, and I said in post #1030 that I did not intend to reveal those ideas of their science application here in this Forum.

After expressing some more unwillingness to look up my previous answers, Ashles asks again on page 28 and post #1119. And then on page 30 and post #1164 I replied to UncaYimmy who had also started asking,

"I have demonstrated what I mean by vibrational algebra, see my past posts to Ashles, find them yourself." ​

and to distinguish between everyday use, and interest in scientific application,

"My interest in doing a project either at school or in my spare time of trying to apply my ideas of vibrations and waves into conventional mathematics is something I have not begun yet nor would I post it here."​

And then again, still on page 30, post #1169 I reply to Ashles and I try to distinguish between my everyday experience of it and my idea of scientific application that I've not yet done and won't describe here,

"I presented an example of what I mean by vibrational algebra. I will not present any actual scientific applications of it here in this Forum but if and once they appear you may read about it in the same publications as everyone else."​

Then you ask again in post #1195 rather than looking it up like I had asked you to do, and again in post #1200. Alright then, I finally answer on page 31 and post #1225,

"What I mean by vibrational algebra is superposition of my perceived vibrational aspects from different sources, in my mind. In ways that are like addition or like subtraction, and yield my perception of a new resulting vibrational aspect. If I perceive a vibrational aspect of a medicine, and a vibrational aspect of a human, and I add these two vibrational aspects together in my mind, I am doing what I call vibrational algebra. That is what I meant by it, and I did provide examples, and I regret that you are falsely accusing me of not having provided an example and trying to force a different answer out of me. The question was answered long ago.

I may have also mentioned that I have an interest in applying my concepts of vibrational aspects to conventional mathematics, but that is something I have not done yet. My interest in applying my ideas that are based on the perceptions to science are not part of my paranormal claim and I will not discuss them here or with you Ashles. Further inquiry into it will not be considered."​

So rather than you looking up the examples of what I mean by vibrational algebra in its everyday use, I have now spent a long time preparing this carefully composed answer, with quotes and all. I hope that shows that your post,

Completely and totally untrue. Link to the post in which you did so.

is yet another example of when a skeptic gets it all wrong (is delusional) but doesn't see it (because when you are delusional you don't see that you're delusional). As you can clearly see now I did in fact give examples of vibrational algebra as I had claimed to have done earlier in the thread. Next time before you jump to accuse me of lying please check out what I actually said. If I say that I've already answered something, then please take your time to a) check whether I've actually answered it before like I said that I have, or b) ask me to refer you to the quotes but without calling me a liar when I was telling the truth, because it takes away from the credibility of your conclusions.

I spent over two hours on this very reply to you Ashles. That's how much I dislike
misunderstandings and being unjustly criticized. You insist/demand these answers
out of me, and all this time I could have been working on preparing the study.​

 

[desertgal]

just beyond all others in ridiculous false conclusions and utter nonsense that was expressed in the disguise of someone who is supposed to represent skepticism, objectivity, and a science-minded approach to paranormal inquiry.

Cuddles:
Your entire post #1198 is an insult against yourself as an alleged objective critical thinker disguised as a skeptic...Your post is an expression of your confusion and incompetence in following in a discussion...You need professional help because you seem to have some form of serious dyslexia that makes you get everything you read all mixed up, and you express schizotypal disorder by pretending you can contribute to critical thinking when clearly you can not...You are currently the most ridiculous poster on this thread...Whoa you've just made an idiot out of yourself!...Cuddles, you've just lost all respect and dignity in my eyes as an objective and valuable contribution to any kind of scientific inquiry...That just makes you seem very stupid...How pathetic of you...You silly excuse of a skeptic!... my dear imitation of a Skeptic. ...O-M-G Cuddles, why are you even here?

Please tell us Anita just committed suicide by moderator?

 

[desertgal]

is yet another example of when a skeptic gets it all wrong (is delusional) but doesn't see it (because when you are delusional you don't see that you're delusional).

Parroting again, and, still, has no idea what it means.

because it takes away from the credibility of your conclusions.

Nope. More fantasy on your part.

You insist/demand these answers
out of me, and all this time I could have been working on preparing the study.​

More fantasy.

My refusal to discuss unrelevant topics that do nothing to progress the investigation does not in my mind take away from my credibility as a paranormal claimant.

You have no credibility as a paranormal claimant.

I will not mix my personal investigation of an unconventional topic that usually has negative connotation, with my professional life and career.

I'm afraid it's too late for that.

 

[Sideroxylon]

VisionFromFeeling, I am a big admirer of the Joe Nickell open minded approach to paranormal claims but given all we have to work with are your increasingly contradictory and extraordinary claims I think you have gotten off very lightly in this thread and gained far more attention than you deserve. On what grounds have you the right to lash out at anyone expressing incredulity or ridicule of your claims?

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Anita, another thing that makes me worry about you is your belief that you have extraterrestrial origins, and specifically you said that this fits best with your view of yourself and if you didn't believe it you probably wouldn't be here today.

What did you mean by that last bit? To me it implies that there was a time in your life when you were under severe stress and feared for your own safety, until you took refuge in the idea that you must be an extreterrestrial being. Am I right?

If so, this worries me.

 

[Legend]

Ditto above.

Alex.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Oh, and we ALL believe you're Swedish. Someone questioned it earlier but then apologised and backed off. All this shows is that a) when you come to a skeptics' forum, be prepared to have everything questionned; and b) if you make strange and ever-more unlikely claims about yourself don't be surprised if people stop believing the simplest things you say.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The headache and nausea during chemical identification tests is something that I experienced only after I was forcing myself to make tens of perceptions within a short period of time when I was testing an infrequent experience. My initial descriptions of experience with chemical identification perceptions regarded perceptions that come on their own and are not forced, so there was no way to include these discomforts then as they had not taken place.

Contradictions abound. You said that it was "typical" to feel ill when doing chemical tests. Now you're telling us you felt ill only after taking these tests. I don't see how these two statements mesh.

Furthermore, by my count you only had two testing sessions with chemicals. Is there a third one I cannot recall? Or are you claiming that after only two sessions you know your limits?

Will you be proceeding with a test with short runs over multiple days to reach a statistically significant number? A true skeptic would.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Let's see... page 31 of nagging skeptics...

Aha, Locknar...
Locknar:

In the absence of credible, acceptable proof it is reasonable and scientific to conclude you do not have synesthesia.

I don't think I agree. What if a patient wants to see a doctor to find out whether he has malaria. He has some symptoms but wants to confirm. The doctor comes out, looks at the patient, and says, "Well, we haven't taken any tests yet to confirm one way or the other, but fortunately there is something called "Locknar's Principle" that we are taught in medical college. In the absence of credible, acceptable proof it is reasonable and scientific to conclude you do not have malaria. So, I am happy to inform you that by "Locknar's Principle" I have just declared you well and you can go home." Locknar, how old are you?

Next, Ashles...
Ashles:
Post #1202,

Are these not directly contradictory?

You bet. One refers to my interest in applying my experiences with vibrational aspects and vibrational algebra into science, and the other refers merely to my everyday experiences of vibrational aspects and vibrational algebra. The first is an interest in the possibility of bringing vibrational aspect into conventional science, and the other is the experience of vibrational aspect in the very non-scientific "personal experience". These are two different things. I haven't been clear enough.

Ashles again, let's see...
Post #1203,

Okay I have to say I do not think I have personally been entirely clear enough about that. I'll put my hands up to that.

I am so relieved. Another nonsense topic rightfully so reaches a dead-end. Because I am not able to end topics in this thread, only another skeptic has those superpowers.
... Ashles really seems like an expert. It is actually wonderful watching her talk about her area of expertise and when it is not aimed at me, that post is showing a new aspect to her. It really shows that she has a degree in these things.
What? The same color? ... I used the dropper tool and thought "yeah right" but to my amazement both squares picked up the same color! I then drew a square using each fetched colors and thought "no way" but they painted the same colored squares! That's a little scary. I think I will sleep with the bedlight on and check under my bed. I will never trust my eyes ever again. I am scarred for life.

I think the point Cuddles is making is that you are using the word "Perceive" as a simple substitution for "Observe" without the necessary difference in meaning.
That is illustrated in your asking "Is not visual perception of a person a stimulus?".

Well when I look at a person, that triggers the perceptions. Is stimulus to be considered an actual source of actual information, or is stimulus to be considered as what ever triggers a perception? I think we can clear this out pretty quickly.

EHocking is back...
EHocking:

It was a miss. No argument. Boasts of 100% accuracy of medical diagnoses by vff are similarly contradictory to the evidence provided by herself.

Not necessarily a miss. We don't know that the small intestine was not associated to the strain and cramp below the sternum even if the small intestine is not just below the sternum.

Old man:

ETA: Which, by the way, gets you stoned.

Seems like Old man has had some real life experiences with the subject...

“Inaccuracy appeared after headache and not before”

No! I specificly said, "Trial 11 and 12 I was tired with headache and nausea and had to stop." with which I meant to imply that headache and nausea occurred first and not after the inaccuracy.
They won't believe me, even though I am telling the truth. It is frustrating being accused of lying after I've had all those cereal tests and done my best to report them accurately and sincerely, and just because I didn't emphasize the point clearly enough in the beginning they will rather accuse me of lying than to realize that I might be telling the truth so to remain objective and open for either possibility. They have no evidence that I'd be lying, nor do I have any evidence that I'd be telling the truth, then why do they have to keep concluding that I'm lying when it is just hurtful and to no use?

Anita, you have prior knowledge of GERD, and how common it is. Claiming that it was a highly unlikely ‘guess’ is absurd. A person who is consciously cold reading will point to his subject’s xiphoid process and say “sometimes you experience discomfort right here”. A person who is subconsciously cold reading will do exactly the same thing, as did you. It is a guess, but it’s a guess about a specific problem, in a specific place, with a very high probability of being right, not “a chance of 1:3100”.

I didn't realize that it was such a common ailment to have a discomfort just below the sternum. I still contend that the point is that I was not confirmed inaccurate, so that the claim was not falsified and I continue with the investigation. I'm not trying to make it sound as if I've been having amazing results with real accuracy in each case, I was just giving examples of the perceptions I experienced just like I was asked to do. And for all I knew I thought that shoulder pain was a common ailment, which is why when I didn't sense it in the person I threw it in anyway just to see if he is always just agreeing with me, I said "you have shoulder pain" trying to make this false claim sound as confident as my actual claims of perception, yet he said no.
I really think they should wait for the study because that will give me opportunity to see lots of people and hopefully some very interesting examples emerge that are not common ailments like this one.
They are so ready to dissect study results and test results that they take every little thing that I've presented and act as if I've already claimed that it is evidence, even when I've clearly stated that that's not what it is, that all it is is examples of perceptions. They ask for examples, then it makes them upset to have examples, because they don't treat them like examples. I think I need to start censoring some of my material so to not stir up some confusion and accusations here. These people are trained for scrutinizing claimed evidence, so do not post any anecdotes or examples here. I've learned something about skeptics.

sleepy lioness:

I mentioned migraine only really to illustrate that I know what it is to have sick headaches, yet I still risk them for something as small as a beer: how much more likely would I be to risk them for the fame and fortune Anita would find if she could demonstrate her chemical-identification tests ...

I am sorry about your migraines. The problem is not only to endure the headaches I get from repeated forced perceptions, the problem is also that the discomfort makes it impossible to perceive them. It is not like asking an athlete to perform in spite of a headache, the talent I aim to demonstrate uses the head, so it is like asking an athlete to run with their legs temporarily broken.

Ashles:

I'm not sure if this question has been asked or answered before - Who are the skeptics? Are they part of a specific group or organisation?

I hope to involve members of the local Winston Salem skeptics group. One of them I've already asked and received a preliminary yes. There is another one I have in mind and will ask. Yet another one has expressed interest if he can make the time. And I intend to ask the entire group again once I know the exact details of how the study will be carried out. I intend to present the finished study plan again and letting them decide whether they want to participate once they have that information and know exactly what will be involved. I will not give any names until they have given final approval of attending and then only if I have their specific consent to make their names known. The study requires that at least one skeptic make his/her identity known in order to present and verify the results of the study.

What ailments do you considered undetectable to cold reading?

I do not know exactly yet, but I am going along with the hope that some would. If no such ailments are available for a test, then I must be able to agree to a test that fully disables cold reading. The very best scenario that I intend to investigate is having ailments that are normally non-detectable as well as disabling cold reading, now wouldn't that be nice. The study will answer some of the questions regarding what I can and can not do. Once I come across ailments that I think might be candidates I will of course bring those here and expect them to go through a thorough analysis that should help to conclude whether they are undetectable to cold reading or not. Some of what I've been thinking are heart bypass surgery, breast implants, vasectomy, missing appendages (although that is yet to be experienced and tried out, I might be able to do it). I know there might be many others.

If you don't actually speak to the person (and neither do they) then I would contend that non-region specific ailments would be pretty much immune to cold reading. E.g. blood disorders.
I assume neither you or the subjects will be speaking. Is that correct?

Correct, neither me or the subjects speak. And I don't agree with your idea of blood disorders, unless you have some specific ones in mind. A blood disorder such as anemia might be externally detectable, but I am sure there are others that might be better candidates for a test than that.

UncaYimmy:
Post #1213,

The other aspects such as chemical identification requires effort and I get headaches

In everyday use, when perceptions come on their own, as they did in the lab experience at school, they appear without effort and without headaches. This quote of mine refers to tests and not everyday experience. You did not catch an error or a contradiction on my part. Try again.

If the hypothesis is a paranormal ability, then the null hypothesis is not necessarily hallucinations

UncaYimmy says he strongly disagrees with this quote of mine. I don't get it. Let's just say that the research hypothesis were "paranormal ability". Then the null hypothesis would be "no paranormal ability", wouldn't it? I said that the null couldn't possibly be "hallucinations", because that would imply that there are only two possibilities. UncaYimmy disagrees with this? I think everyone is confused about everything around here. Even about the things that make sense.

Like I said, it's just a definition of interfering. It affects your life, that's for sure. If you take actions based on a delusion, it is by definition interfering with your life. So, if I were told I had delusions but really wasn't acting on them, who cares? If, however, I devoted countless hours in the pursuit of something others believed may be the result of a delusion, I'd get it checked out since *I* would not be able to tell on my own.

Well I've had apparent accuracy with the perceptions and want to find out more. Sure, I might find out that all it is is cold reading, but if that's what it is then that's exactly what I am trying to find out. I can't hold any "favorite outcome" because that might interfere with my work, and could also lead me to get disappointed one way or the other. I thought I had every right to commence a paranormal investigation since I've experienced a phenomenon I can't explain. And I have faith that a scientific investigation will explain it for me. They really don't know how my "anecdotes" took place, and I grant them that, but just because they must disregard my experiences entirely as if they never took place, and I grant them that, why can't they allow that I've had experiences that allow for this investigation?
Of course they think these are delusions. That is what I would have normally initially assumed, and not thought more of the impressions of the insides of people's bodies and of how they feel. But when I have such compelling apparent accuracy, I am curious.
If they could accept that I believe that my anecdotes took place as described, they would understand that I have a reason to pursue this claim even if they don't. To ask me to conclude the same as they, is just rude. I won't disregard the interesting experiences I've had. I won't stop this investigation, just because they don't have the anecdotes.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Perhaps if you are going to change the colour of your font, green ink might be more appropriate.

ETA: And how come you didn't know GERD or discomfort in that area was so common? Surely you see it in many people as you go about your daily business. And haven't you ever noticed the many types of antacids/indigestive pills on drugstore shelves, or adverts on TV for them? I would find it hard to believe that there is anyone in the western world who doesn't know that indigestion is a common ailment.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:

Are honest misunderstandings not allowed in your world or something?

Not at all, I allow for misunderstandings and I'm sure I've made some too. It is just when misunderstandings seem to appear from every single thing I've said, and when people here make those false assumptions in spite of there being no evidence in favor of their false assumption, and then place so much belief into them. And also when expressing it in a negative, hostile manner and turning it against me. I understand the case of misunderstanding the Australian American school system, but to express in such a negative manner I don't like.

When I claim to be telling the truth and then accusing me of lying when there is no evidence to conclude that I am lying. I allow people to suspect or even expect lying and some other things, but to conclude with no good reason and to turn it into uncomfortable accusations against me gets tiresome after a while.

Post #1223, thank you for finding the quote for me, that I remembered I had made, that Ashles was asking for! How wonderful of you!

UncaYimmy:

Conventional mathematics? You mean mathematics, right? Because what you're doing in your head is just your imagination.

Right. I was making the clear distinction between (conventional) mathematics, and the "mathematics" I do in my head with the vibrational aspects of things which are just my impressions and nothing to worry about.

Akhenaten:

The upcoming study is fairly easy to set up and it will answer some of the questions regarding my experiences, and I am sure I will be able to take in the conclusions of the study, what ever it may reveal.

There aren't any questions regarding your experiences. They were dismissed as the anecdotes they are as soon as they were presented.

No. I meant questions regarding what the perceptions in general are. The past experiences of perceptions must be regarded as anecdotes since they took place without any confirming evidence or investigation, whereas future experiences of perceptions will hopefully lead to the perceptions in general receiving a proper name, such as "delusions", "imagination", "hallucinations", "cold reading", "synesthetic association of one form of visual input into other forms of visual imagery as well as texture, feeling, and understanding", "extrasensory perception of the insides of human bodies", or what not.

Yes. You're totally subjective in everything you do. It's led to you fabricate your own reality, which of course we don't share. This is unlikely to change.

The medical perceptions I have are subjective in that others don't perceive them when they look at persons. But to conclude based on that that my entire sense of reality is subjective is just not right. Also I do not place belief nor a sense of reality on the perceptions, but consider them as impressions. I am investigating as to their actual accuracy as well as natural origin.

Your study will alter nothing. Have you considered a test? Oh, wait . . .

Please read the entire page on www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html as it answers what my expectations are of the study. Wow. I love referring to another page rather than simply just re-typing everything time and again.

I'm sick of hearing about peanut oil.

Well frankly, so am I. But as long as a misconception exists on this thread I will of course try to clear it out. Of course.

I was hoping that it would have been obvious that I was trying to be funny when I posted that. Of course you guys are not "annihilating" each other. That was just my fun way of saying that I am pleased you are all answering each others' questions and taking care of each other in my absence.

Just who do you think you are exactly? Queen of the JREF?

Grumpy guy...

My claim is not beginning to fall apart.

No. It finished doing that some time ago.

No my claim of medical perceptions from live people is still in progress. It is a testable as well as a falsifiable claim and I belive a conclusion (that is based on evidence rather than your expectations) will be made. Even though if progress is slow, which I regret.

Your claim(s) are dust.

Not at all. I've had unusual experiences with apparent accuracy in medical perceptions. For instance, I've experienced detecting a crushed skull when there were no (known) obvious external symptoms, vasectomy, heart bypass surgery vertical scar, cysts of the reproductive system, many interesting experiences and no confirmed inaccuracy. Anyhow, please disregard my personal explanations for why I am personally motivated to have the study and tests, since it is obvious - and I grant you all that - that these are things you can not share, since you were not there to witness them and they have not been verified to make them formal or mutual experience. I really do have an interesting paranormal claim.

Your credibilty is zero.

Why? Every time I've been accused of lying we ended up showing that all it was was the misunderstanding and quick false assumptions of skeptics. I've been accused of lying many many times here on the thread, I've been cleared of lying many many times, some accusations remain to be revealed as one way or the other, and not once have I been proven to be lying on this thread.

We all need critical thinking skills, and hopefully you'll have some of your own one day.

Not critical thinking... I place no belief in the perceptions and consider them only as impressions. The perceptions are not part of my sense of reality. Often I encounter a perception that is not confirmed with my ordinary senses and then I strongly suspect it to be inaccurate (yet when checked it fails to be falsified). I realize that ESP has not been proven in any case yet and that cold reading is one possible conclusion, yet I need a test which involves other people in order to find out. There is no way to test oneself.
Of course I apply critical thinking to my perceptions. I just continue to acknowledge the experiences I've had with them, whereas these guys are in a situation where they completely have to disregard my past (and undocumented, unverified) experiences as anything but the claim. We are in different situations because of that, and I regret that. They just don't know where I'm coming from or why I'm here.

It's very unlikely that any of the skeptikal skills available here will be used to develop any protocols relating to your current claim(s).

... But they already have. UncaYimmy suggested a very good study procedure, for instance! Now Akhenaten is being pessimistic against not only me, but against his fellow skeptics too.

May I respectfully submit the above revision for your approval, Your Majesty?

No, because it cuts out many of the important points that I make.

Thank you for expressing concern about my well-being, and I'm glad you're still here because I need the toughest skeptics to look into protocol design and results later on. You guys are excellent, and at times difficult, but I'm still here.

Your just being arrogant now. And the wishful thinking is getting worse too.

How rude. I was not being arrogant at all, I really meant what I say in the exact way the words should be interpreted. Of course I value them expressing concern for my well-being, and I've not taken it as an insult at all. What I don't like however is when I'm being concluded as being delusional etc. and then when it is being thrown at me in a negative manner. Like I've said there are nice ways of saying bad things, but some of them have done it that way too. Of course I value the skeptics because that's why I'm here. I only regret that I don't have more results to publish, because then we end up in this silly and never-ending conversation of misunderstandings, rude accusations and insults, and all other kinds of nonsense.

And you are absolutely right. To claim a perception of discomfort or pain in a certain part of the body might not be a specific enough ailment in all cases to be useful in a test. Point remains that the person in this experience did not tell me I was wrong, so there was nothing to falsify the claim at that point and I've continued with the investigation toward a study that will be better able to establish actual accuracy.

He thinks this is rubbish... Of course I acknowledge that my apparent accuracy in past experiences is not necessarily the same as actual accuracy, but if I had been receiving plenty of apparent inaccuracy I would not have proceeded with this claim. If I tell a person that I see that he's had vasectomy, and he says no, then that would have been reason toward terminating the investigation. And Locknar said it, 5:6 chance of being incorrect. I've put myself in plenty of situations where inaccurate perceptions could have emerged and been revealed as such, but no confirmed inaccuracy. Of course there are so many reasons why inaccuracy might pass as accuracy, but the thing is that there's not been inaccuracy and so I proceed toward tests. This should show my openness to inaccuracy, and to the fact that it is a falsifiable claim.

There's always just one more thing, isn't there?

If I actually told this person that he is expressing arrogance, but I won't do that.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Anita, why are you writing your posts in different coloured inks? Are we supposed to hear them in different voices or something?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

And have you been up all night?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Professor Yaffle:
Post #1228. Perceptions that come to me on their own either depict serious health information, or, as you've reminded me, something unusual. Most ailments can occur to varying extents, and if severe will catch my attention and form images and perception on their own, whereas the very same type of ailment and in another milder case might remain undetected by me unless I've chosen to do the "head-to-toe" reading to look closer for anything out of the ordinary. I suspect that there is a dividing line beyond which an ailment is too weak to be detectable by me even when I make the effort. This concern with "I don't claim to detect an ailment in each case in which it is considered to occur" is the reason why I insist on being allowed to pass on subjects and ailments that I do not detect on a test.

Akhenaten:

Please provide an example of vibrational algebra in a similar format.

Instead of numbers the so called vibrational algebra deals with how I combine in my mind my perceived vibrational aspects of things in order to perceive a resulting and brand new vibrational aspect that represents their combination and can then be translated back into corresponding physical real-world things.

Addition:
5 + 2 = x
medicine + human = unknown medical effect
I combine the two vibrational aspects of the medicine and the human and perceive what the effect of the medicine would be on the human, in a vibrational sense. I can then translate this new resulting perception back into real-world things to have a prediction of the effects of their combination. For instance,
human + certain medicine = unknown medical effect
I perceived the unknown medical effect to be that it is a serious liver toxin that the kidneys flush out with copious amounts of fluid and when I had to guess what possible benefit this might have I correctly concluded that it is a diuretic.

Subtraction:
2 + x = 3
bacteria + unknown medicine = dead bacteria
This I rearrange so that everything I know to be involved is in my perception in the beginning.
3 - 2 = x
dead bacteria - bacteria = unknown medicine
I superimpose my perception of the vibrational aspect of the dead bacteria with the one of the live bacteria and perceive the 'difference' that I can translate into corresponding real-world physical things. When I do this with,
dead Helicobacter - live Helicobacter = unknown medicine
I perceive the 'unknown medicine' to have the vibrational aspect that is identical or at least very reminiscent of calcium carbonate. Note: the vibrational concept of 'live Helicobacter' also includes its environment in the human stomach, in my perception things are not taken out of context and other related information is always included.

Besides addition and subtraction, of course I can also play around with my perceptions of vibrational aspects. For instance by implementing exponential growth or decay and all sorts of fun mathematical effects that let me observe how the vibrational perceptions change in my mind's awareness.

I hope this doesn't sound scary, because really it is ok. These vibrations are more of a sense of relating a sense of size or magnitude to things, kind of like if you have opinions about how you feel about people. One person you love, another you hate, another you admire, except that mine are not associated to emotions like these are. I can elaborate on how I experience these vibrational aspects if anyone is interested.

Pup:

But I'm guessing you mean the original pills with all their fillers and colorings, and not the actual pure medicines.

Yes! That's what I mean! Thank you for figuring that out!

The first thing that occurs to me is that wanting to be aware of the size, odor and perhaps texture or appearance of the original pills might help you sense which is which through normal means.

Of course I have no such intention, and can easily acquire at least most of these pills that you are sending me if I wanted to, I was just thinking it would be easier for you to do so. You can choose to not include original samples if you wish.

but it's not about identifying brands, it's about identifying their effects on the human, body, right?

Actually I was hoping to try the chemical identification approach but can also attempt the medicinal effects approach. In this case I have two options available to try. Thank you for arranging this.

Ignoring most of desertgal's post because anything and everything I say will be misinterpreted, and even when I say nice things it is resented. I will not engage in conversations with this person regarding mental health.
desertgal:

And stop saying that so far, you have had accurate information from these perceptions. Several people here have pointed out repeatedly that that is not true.

None of my medical perceptions from live people have been proven to be inaccurate. One detail of a perception was shown to be doubtful (the small intestine perceived in association to the feeling of strain below the sternum) but that is not concluded as inaccurate or accurate.
I've already said that I appreciate Forum members expressing concern for my well-being, and I've thanked them for that and I consider it to be a caring gesture and not insulting.