VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

[Uncayimmy]

So now we are believing in my Vibrational Information explanation just because it allows us to deny the Synesthesia explanation? Just to keep it going that none of what I say could possibly be true?

Nope. Unlike you, I have read up on synesthesia extensively. Nobody has ever described it as "downloading" information for later "manipulation." The site where you took and failed most of the screening tests defines it as follows:

Synesthesia is a perceptual condition of mixed sensations: a stimulus in one sensory modality (e.g., hearing) involuntarily elicits a sensation/experience in another modality (e.g. vision). Likewise, perception of a form (e.g., a letter) may induce an unusual perception in the same modality (e.g. a color).

So, what sensations of yours are being mixed that allow you to see inside a body to the molecular level?

Sounds like synesthesia to me.

Only to you. But since you are going to get a doctor to diagnose you, we'll find out, won't we?

So, when I read and a color pops up from the page and with the same consistent color to the same things, it couldn't possibly be synesthesia? I am of course imagining things, and delusional because that's all a paranormal claimant could ever be.

Straw man argument. As I said, you could very well have synesthesia. For all I know when you hear the musical note A above middle C you also perceive the color yellow. So what?

You are throwing around too many claims, so things are getting confusing. Simply put, there is no clinical definition of synesthesia that is "reminiscent" of you seeing inside someone's body and detecting a missing kidney or a missing piece of flesh from a vasectomy.

If you see colors with numbers or whatever, that's irrelevant to your claim that you can detect when someone has to take a pee or that a woman is menstruating.

 

[Uncayimmy]

On Anita's website she wrote, "with three of the I think five volunteers I perceived something extra that the volunteer was then asked about, and after each I had asked the participant whether I was right or not, and all three had been verified. "

This is in violation of her own protocol which stated very clearly that there would be no communication between herself and participants.

Furthermore, Anita made a big deal about how she would not have access to the questionnaires filled out by participants or volunteers. Yet during the "study" she "spoke with the three controls [volunteers] between the readings and occasionally we compared what each of us had just perceived or guessed about the volunteer's health, and some of what we had put down were the same."

And thus we have Anita, who claims what she is doing might be cold reading, improving her skills with feedback from participants and volunteer assistants. It's no wonder the FACT group would not directly endorse her study. It's too bad that some members allowed themselves to be duped into participating in this charade.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Second Study

Here is an e-mail I sent to the IIG,

Dear Jim Newman and the IIG,

I had the first study Saturday April 4 with five members of the FACT Skeptics Group participating with the assignments and I think five members of the public as the volunteers who were read by myself and three Skeptics whose assignments were to try to outdo me in correlation by any means of guessing, cold reading or statistics and demographics. I left all the original material in the hands of the Skeptics and can report the results as soon as copies of the data is returned to me.

I am now planning a second study which is an improved version and takes place provided that the first study does not falsify the claim. If you look at the health questionnaire that was used in the first study, attached in this e-mail, the second study will instead only include health information that should not be detectable by seeing a person from behind. That enables more space for those test-quality questions to be asked in more detail.

*If you can suggest any additional test-quality ailments to be included in the health questionnaire of the second study for us to find out whether I detect them or not, please do provide those to me.

The second study will try out more test conditions. From where me and the IIG left our test protocol negotiations last, I can already thanks to the study bring good improvements to our protocol. See my updates on that process on www.visionfromfeeling.com/testprotocol.html For instance I now ask that in our test the subjects will be seen from behind rather than front as it does not lower my performance but rather makes it easier for me and is also better for test purposes. Once I've compiled a good enough new test protocol suggestion I will submit that to the IIG again.

Before doing the second study I will prepare several types of screens at home and try those with friends to find out what is the "most screen" I can work with that doesn't lower my performance. The one largest and densest screen possible will then be used in the second study to see what the actual correlation with new subjects is with that screen. I will try screens of different sizes ranging from concealing the entire body to concealing only various areas and will also try screens made of different materials starting from the densest being plywood to various types of fabrics with different densities.

I will also have my friends try various large clothing that conceal the contour of the body to see whether my perceptions still occur to the same standard.

I will also try a pane of glass between me and volunteers.

I will try music to see whether it is distracting and what ranges of volume I can work with.

*Are there any other test conditions that you would like for me to try with the second study?

My hopes are that the second study will be the final step before we go ahead and finalize our test protocol and schedule the test to take place. Can't wait to meet you all.

Your paranormal claimant,
Anita Ikonen
www.visionfromfeeling.com​

The health questionnaire mentioned can be found here.

 

[Paul2]

and three Skeptics whose assignments were to try to outdo me in correlation by any means of guessing, cold reading or statistics and demographics.

It was either Wittgenstein or Seneca who said "when the words are confused, the mind is also."

 

[Paul2]

Shoulda done the Googlie before posting:

"Where the speech is corrupted, the mind is also." (http://www.quotationspage.com/search.php3?homesearch=seneca&page=3)

 

[Ashles]

No? Why would you need to? When I post the raw data as well as my conclusions you can just disregard my conclusions for that time and only look at the data. However I will try to remember your request and can send the scanned copies of the health questionnaires (and that is what makes up the raw data) to you first before anyone else receives them and before they are even posted on my website. How's that for appreciating you, Ashles?

ETA: I forget that Ashles has a degree in experimental design and psychology and therefore I will not question his motives for how he wishes to receive the data from the study and I will definitely ensure that he receives copies in the way that he has requested. Only good can come from that.

I had missed this response previously.

I don't want the results before anyone else, and there wouldn't be any way for you to transmit them to me unless it can be done via PM somehow.
All I ask is that the data is presented in a clear raw format either free from interpretation and analysis, or where the interpretation and analysis are clearly seperated from the raw data.

I.e. not like your description of the 'reading' of Wayne where it was impossible to tell what you had 'detected' at the time versus what comments you were making subsequent to finding out the results.

Also can you tell us who from the skeptics will be vouching for the integrity of the data and details of how the study was carried out?
(Obviously it isn't going to mean a great deal if we only get an unverified set of results from you.)

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Paul2, so you disagree with my choice of including controls in the study procedure? Or with the fact that the controls could try any means of acchieving high correlation other than cheating? If there is something valuable to your post, please make it more clear as to what it is so that I can benefit from it.

 

[Paul2]

Mods, ignore this message if my answer to VFF's #187 post is going to be posted.

VFF: Can you clarify what you meant in your statement that is quoted in my post #184? I don't understand what you wrote.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Never mind Paul2, I just didn't understand your quote or how it would apply to me or my investigation, that's all. "When the words are confused, the mind is also." I didn't think I'd come across as confused in words nor mind. I'm quite clear about what I'm doing.

 

[Ashles]

Never mind Paul2, I just didn't understand your quote or how it would apply to me or my investigation, that's all. "When the words are confused, the mind is also." I didn't think I'd come across as confused in words nor mind. I'm quite clear about what I'm doing.

That may be but I'm afraid nobody else is clear as to what you are doing.

Normally we have a specific claim to test.
You have not provided a specific claim to test.

You have made many specific claims, but when asked for more details, the spcifics have disappeared.

Right now nobody is sure of anything more than you are sort of testing non-specified medical related paranormal vision that can look at non-specified medical/normal biological aspects of the human body in non-specified conditions to a non-specified level of accuracy.

And your current investigations have no specific goals and no falsifification scenarios and are being run without the assistance of any formal skeptic group.

You have no specific method of objective marking and have not used any experimental protocols agreed with any independent group.

Is that correct?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Never mind Paul2, I just didn't understand your quote or how it would apply to me or my investigation, that's all. "When the words are confused, the mind is also." I didn't think I'd come across as confused in words nor mind. I'm quite clear about what I'm doing.

So are we

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Notice how two VFF threads get bumped by Anita after almost a week of being ignored by everyone else ..

Aren't we done with this ?

 

[Paul2]

"I'm quite clear about what I'm doing." (VFF)

But you're not clear about what you're writing in this forum, especially the quotation in my post #184.

I'd still love to know, VFF, what those words meant.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Paul2, what part of this don't you understand,

and three Skeptics whose assignments were to try to outdo me in correlation by any means of guessing, cold reading or statistics and demographics.

I had a study (www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html) to learn more about my paranormal claim. The study included having three persons, who are Skeptics, to also look at the volunteers at the same time I do and they would also fill in questionnaires based on their impressions of the volunteer's health. The controls were told to try any methods except cheating to try to acchieve a correlation with the answers that the volunteers had previously made in their own questionnaires, and the controls were asked to try methods such as guessing, cold reading, or statistics and demographics. My correlation will be compared with theirs.

What part of that is unclear?

 

[Cuddles]

I had a study

No, you didn't. That joke was not a study in any sense of the word.

The controls were told to try any methods except cheating

Why not cheating? After all, if the point is to show that you have some kind of paranormal ability, you need to rule out every normal possibility. Given your general level of disingenuity and dishonesty, I'd say cheating is a pretty important thing to rule out.

 

[Paul2]

VFF, your post 194 is clear. Your other post, that I quoted, wasn't. That is, "try to out do me in correlation" is not grammatical, it's meaningless.

If I'm being to pedantic, forgive me.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

No, you didn't. That joke was not a study in any sense of the word.



Why not cheating? After all, if the point is to show that you have some kind of paranormal ability, you need to rule out every normal possibility. Given your general level of disingenuity and dishonesty, I'd say cheating is a pretty important thing to rule out.

I agree! In fact, the control observers should be able to use any means short of paranormal means to assess the volunteers. As long as it is not paranormal or illegal, it is fair game.

 

[dafydd]

"I had never met him before and only for a few hours of the meeting that day.
I wrote that his "heart" is "nice and orange pink", which is my way of saying that I perceive the heart to be in perfect health. I wrote that the heart is "not red and inflamed."
Two weeks later, he decided not to get his annual exam.
And ...
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1362/672046396_81949554bb_o.jpg

The thought of Anita going around dispensing medical advice is pretty scary.With a bit of luck it will be obvious to her "patients" that she is a dyed-in-the-wool woo,so they will ignore her,if they have any sense and visit someone qualified.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Harmless psychic readings?

Dear Skeptics,
For those of you who don't know, since there are always a few who don't, I am a paranormal claimant investigating my experience of medical perceptions, www.visionfromfeeling.com. Before having a test I am having a series of studies to learn more about the experience and how to conform it to a test.

The first study was held and I am still waiting for the results and the data to be returned back to me. A second study is being designed which will only involve unambiguous and mostly test-quality health questions as well as a screen.

Thinking of finding ways to gain more experience with the medical perceptions and with the possibility of checking for their accuracy, I once again came to think of psychic readings. If I were to offer psychic readings to people it would attract a lot of people who would perhaps otherwise not have been interested in participating in the study as it is. I would present myself as no more than an alleged psychic however, as someone who wants to find out what their skill is or isn't...

The volunteers would fill out a health questionnaire. After that I would look at them and fill out my own health questionnaire. At the end of the reading a participant checks for correlation, and the volunteer gets to find out which of their ailments I was able to perceive. The volunteer is then told how many ailments I was incorrect about but is not told what these were. That way the volunteer does not receive any incorrect health information and should be of no risk of harm or distress.

There is of course no money involved. And this could be added to the progress of the investigation. This would be exactly the same as the study and be part of the study process, only that the volunteer gets to find out what things I did perceive, and how much information I was incorrect about (but not which ones). This way, I am hoping I can make more progress in my investigation.

What do you all think? And please, no comments on that I'd be preparing for a "career in woo" because that just isn't true. I am a science student and my career will be in conventional science. I am simply investigating an unusual phenomenon and happen to be the unlikely combination of science and woo and that is a very interesting experience.

 

[desertgal]

You insisted that your 'ability' is the result of synesthesia. You even argued that it is synesthesia/reminiscent of synesthesia/symptoms of synesthesia with those skeptics here who pointed out that your 'ability' isn't consistent with the symptoms of that phenomenon. Since you believe your 'ability' is synesthesia, you cannot believe it is paranormal. You are not a paranormal claimant. Case closed.