VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

[skeen]

Got that people? New term: "Forum Skeptics".

or calling me mentally ill for having synesthesia

Wow. You do not have synesthesia. Can you not see why some people would claim you mentally ill (at least to some degree) when you continuously make claims such as this, which have no basis in reality? Anita, you have seen the ghosts of dinosaurs. You have spoken with Benjamin Franklin. You are a "star child". You see through people, except when you don't. And on and on.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Akhenaten posted a quote by me,

To me, whether I turn out to be able to successfully detect this information under test-settings, and in repeated trials, will not change the fact that I will continue perceiving the information in individual cases as before.

And what that means is that no matter what the perceptions end up being, or labeled as, they will continue to occur. I have already explained this so many times before. And I guess I have to explain the exact same thing once again:

If the investigation concludes that my medical perceptions are entirely subjective, imaginary, and not correlating with reality, they will still continue to take place because they are automatic. But I will know what they are and what they are not.

 

[plumjam]

Well I guess she must be really hacked off with me - that's why she PMd me three days ago to ask for my input on her test design this weekend and I already know what the study is testing, but by agreement with Anita have not yet revealed the subject.
The second PM began "Thank you Ashles, I trust your valuable judgement and am considering it."

So which is it? You either trust what she says or you don't. Oh.. it seems you trust her words when it suits your argument.. but otherwise not. OK.

Now I don't think she will take on board my suggestions, but all of "our little gang" are more than able to have meaningful exchanges with Anita.
I think you have rather misjudged the tone of these threads. Anita enjoys them hugely.

And here you are recommending Yimmy's site on the grounds that it will be relatively free of that oh-so-bothersome moderation.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4575125&postcount=235

UncaYimmy's site is a place where, if frustrations boil over, as they clearly are here by now, they can be expressed without fear of moderator actions.

Now, if that doesn't count as incitement to bullying then I don't know what would. "Yeah, let's get her all on her own, so we can attack her without any interference whatsoever. Yum yum *lick lips*."

Still I'll let you get back to valiantly and herocally defending... whatever it is you believe you are defending.

It's called having a conscience.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

It could have been designed that way very easily. In fact in pretty much its exact form we could have decided in advance what data would falsify your claims while simultaneously allowing you to "study" the data in any way you see fit.

The study is designed for me to learn more about my claimed experience. The study is a gradual approach toward a proper test procedure. Since most of the study does not implement all required test conditions all at once the study can never prove the paranormal claim. It is also not designed to figure out "what score" would falsify the claim. It is just for gained experience and insight. The study is not a test. A test comes later and is based on the study.

You refused to do this. You refused to work with people you came to for assistance. You are selfish and stubborn. Even your website lists several excellent suggestions from the local skeptics (they are not "your" local skeptics, BTW), most of which you reject outright.

I am quite selfish and stubborn when there are page after page of accusations against my mental health for claiming to be from Sweden or for doing two B.S. degrees simultaneously, you can't blame me for becoming *a little* on the defensive side. And yes they are my local skeptics, they are local to my area. I'm sorry if you might not like a paranormal claimant working with real skeptics.

What you have done today is something that most of think was a silly idea from the beginning. Please don't act like it's some great accomplishment for you to indulge your fantasies.

You're just acting real ridiculous. The study is the perfect next step in my investigation, even the Independent Investigations Group thought so! Jim!

You are a liar. You know full well that *I* cannot "deny" you anything. I also understand the "purpose" of your study as I have repeatedly stated. I just think that "purpose" is a waste of time. Please stop misrepresenting me.

I am not a liar, I think it is quite clear that it is perfectly valid to try out test conditions before claiming to be able to perform a paranormal ability under those conditions, and the fact that you fail to see this benefit indicates a great misunderstanding about my claim on your part.

I am not your hon. I and others have asked you before to refrain from using such condescending language. Unless, of course, you want this thread degrade into bickering. Is that your strategy? Post your Walls o' Text, say things you know will lead to bickering, watch the thread get moderated, then start a new unmoderated thread?

I'll just call you delusional and mentally ill from now on. It seems to be ok to do so unfounded here. And I did not mean Hon in a condescending way, but, again you misunderstand. These threads are always bickering, you are already doing it. It is not my strategy but it seems to be yours, Mr. "StopVisionFromFeeling". I only post walls of text in response to all of yours wall of texts trying to clear out misunderstandings and false accusations against me? Well, you don't have to come here and be responsible for placing this thread under moderated status. Go back to your own thread and spread lies about me there.

Cut it with the brilliant stuff already. I have told you repeatedly it is not "brilliant" to suggest something that has been done in countless studies over the years. Your ignorance of conducting proper research does not make me brilliant.

So you don't think it is brilliant to design a detail for a procedure that enables the volunteers to remain perfectly anonymous with regard to their personal health information? Well, I guess this is your cute little way of being humble when I give you some praise for good Skeptical work.

*ignoring desertgal's post entirely ... delusional ... mentally ill
... schizotypal disorder ... delusional ... oh, and liar*​

 

[desertgal]

am quite selfish and stubborn when there are page after page of accusations against my mental health for claiming to be from Sweden or for doing two B.S. degrees simultaneously

Nope, wrong again.

Go back to your own thread and spread lies about me there.

Nope, wrong again.

*ignoring desertgal's post entirely ... delusional ... mentally ill
... schizotypal disorder ... delusional ... oh, and liar*

Nope, wrong again.

Wow. You do not have synesthesia. Can you not see why some people would claim you mentally ill (at least to some degree) when you continuously make claims such as this, which have no basis in reality? Anita, you have seen the ghosts of dinosaurs. You have spoken with Benjamin Franklin. You are a "star child". You see through people, except when you don't. And on and on.

She can't hear you. No matter how many ways we say it, or how many times, Anita's receiver is tuned to another station, and it will take more than us to change it.

The best thing we could do for her now is simply let it go. Help establish the actual facts on UncaYimmy's site, and let her post to herself here. Continuing the same endless circle of arguments will get us nowhere, and it will only help her perpetuate her fantasies.

Time to let it go. She can't hear us.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Dr. Carlson reminded us about the reading with Wayne, in which I did in fact write "Thyroid?" on my notes. I said that I did in fact write that, but before I concluded on that reading I had concluded that it was the adam's apple I was sensing and that is what I said when I presented my reading at the end to Wayne. In my conclusion there was nothing about the thyroid. I said that I must take better notes from now on, because what I wrote is not the same as what I actually said and concluded on. I said that I also sense information about the body that is not health problems. Such as the beating of the heart, or the movement of the lungs, and sensing the adam's apple I did not sense it as involving a disorder


Thyroid ?? Tally ho , Dr Carlson is on to you.....

When I was reading Wayne my logic was expecting a large list of ailments since, after all, Wayne had prepared a list of his health conditions. I found nothing. I searched and searched, his heart and lungs looked excellent and showed great signs of lots of exercise, the digestive system was excellent, and I wasn't finding anything! So I tuned up my searching skills thinking that my sensing must be on a low mode today to try to find anything mentionable about the man! That is when I started to write the "most clear information" that I sensed. Now if a man is perfectly healthy the "most clear information" will be healthy too. The things I sensed the clearest was his adam's apple, and left shoulder. But before finishing the reading and reporting my conclusions in full and without dialogue I had concluded that what I felt in the throat was his adam's apple and that it was perfectly healthy, and that my feeling his left shoulder was also not a health problem.

Note: "Thyroid?" with a question mark. Not a final conclusion. My conclusion, as I reported to Wayne and everybody after the reading, was that adam's apple, and healthy was all I had felt. I sense not only health problems but also healthy things like swallowing, breathing, heartbeat and other normal and perfectly healthy things that feel like something to me too.

If my claim is a non-ability then I'd be happy if Dr. Carlson was on to it because in that case, falsification of the claim is the true objective of this investigation.

Blasted chaps, that vixen got away again!

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I experience many forms of automatic association of information that is reminiscent to synesthesia,

Let me test my understanding of the highlighted part of your quote. You have claimed to have synesthesia,now you say it's " reminicent of synesthesia".
I honestly wonder if you think before you type these "explanations". No one on this forum has denied you the right to investigate your claims in any way that you choose. But we can discuss and/or dismiss your claims as we choose. It all comes back to the same thing in the end, you were not willing to test your claims in a scientific way. There were many in this forum that worked very hard to help you and you dismissed all that help and went ahead in your own very un-scientific way. So what it boils down to is this you can test your claims and we can take those conclusions and discuss them either here or on another forum. We don't complain and you don't complain..right?

I am quite sure that I have synesthesia, but some Forum Skeptics don't allow me to sound so conclusive without obtaining a professional diagnosis of this so that is why have demoted it to saying that it is only "reminiscent" of synesthesia, to keep some of the bickering on a minimum. But in my mind it is still the same thing. I think very carefully about my choice of words, and in what way to present things to provoke the least upset from Forum Skeptics. Oh, and several Forum Skeptics have strong objections against the way I investigate my claim! The study is the perfect current step in my investigation, you may have what ever other opinion you choose.

The reason I seem opposing is because of all the personal attacks that make me turn away and suspect ill intent in some of their posts, I also notice a great misunderstanding of my claim in their posts as well as the insistance that my claim would be falsified for having felt someone's adam's apple, for instance. If I let this all in your hands, it would go nowhere from here.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

(Takes online test that UncaYimmy referred her to. Does not pass, except in one area, and it was not conclusive.)

That online test does not test for the areas where I experience synesthesia-like association and does not enable one to answer in the combination of colors or the combination of sounds which is how I perceive.

It seems like Anita suffers from a fear that she is simply ordinary. She brings up synaesthesia, and talks about people whose minds work in strange ways, and wants to have those conditions - wants to have anything that would make her special.

I am describing my experiences. If you seem to connect those experiences to being special then it is you who brought that up. It says more about what you think about these things. To me these experiences are ordinary and normal and it is more interesting to me that others don't perceive or process information in these ways.

She only seems to do tests where statistically, she might get it right. But unfortunately for her, she has failed even those.

I have not failed any tests of my claim of medical perceptions. The claim has not been falsified.

I think she WANTS to be "different" or "special" because her ego demands it and the woo is "special" but cannot be "proven" to any literal degree.

I am merely describing my actual experiences. If you think they seem special then that is entirely your interpretation of it. To me they are ordinary.

This gives her the obfuscation angle to bog down any challenge to her claims.

My claim is correlating medical perceptions. The current step in its investigation is the study to try out test conditions, and that is the step that was suggested also by the local skeptics as well as the IIG and also myself. You can sit in the corner if you want.

I'm in the scam corner

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita's 'study' page is becoming almost incomprehensible now (I assume by design).

I understand there is little doubt that she is (on the whole) a high-scoring science student.
I just cannot understand how.
If she were writing or describing experimental design in her courses in this way she would score terribly.

My college science papers happen to be excellent. I have been adding update after another to the study.html page and I agree that it has become somewhat of a mess by now. I do intend to tidy it up, especially now that the results of two readings and the first study will be posted there. I agree with your observation Ashles.

The only explanation for such badly designed (and ignoring all input from anyone else) tests/studies/surveys can be deliberate intention to obfuscate.

Nothing intentional, just a mess.

Jolly good - well you carry on, you're obviously enjoying getting yourself wound up defending someone who doesn't really seem to be taking much notice.

I take notice. It should be quite obvious by now.

Yeah, funny. She has been single-handedly bullying dozens of people by being relatively polite, respectful, but too slow for most people's liking.
If being dangled these 'morsels' is going to cause you such personal suffering that you have no choice but to retaliate by indulging in bullying then maybe you should do yourself a favour and leave these threads.

Seconded.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I don't follow why Anita wants to add screens and tighten controls??

The IIG with whom I was in test protocol negotiations had asked me whether I would agree to the use of screens on the test. And lacking the experience to know whether I could, I had then said no. If my perceptions persist with the use of screens I will definitely want to include these on the real test. Why? I want to ensure a high quality test.

Even in the loose cold reading, no controls format she failed already?!

I have not failed. The claim was not falsified.

Waynes's, thyroid, tired shoulder, adams apple, throat discomfort? and missing the scar from an operation...

Not a failure. I reported sensing no health problems and only sensing a healthy adam's apple and a slightly tired left shoulder. My conclusion about his health was that he was in perfect health and also exercises a lot all of which was true. To miss a scar is no big deal, I was not even looking at his skin I was expecting health problems with organs or bones or something common like that. You are interpreting this reading in your favor to support your suspicions against me rather than looking to what actually happened.

Dr Carlson 4 or 5 minor things found (wrong) and didnt view/feel the missing kidney?(wrong).

The joints I reported were that I had felt them, all of which to the lowest extent. I did not detect health problems with them, just that I felt them. Same as saying that I felt Wayne's adam's apple. I did feel and see that the left kidney was missing although I chose not to report it, because my logic was thinking that it can't be true and that if I were wrong I'd never hear the end of it. Turns out I would have been correct, so the study was fully successful in teaching me things about the way my claim works so "missing kidney" is added to the test protocol.

Lady skeptic one guess right.

Lady skeptic several medical perceptions were correct.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Well I guess she must be really hacked off with me - that's why she PMd me three days ago to ask for my input on her test design this weekend and I already know what the study is testing, but by agreement with Anita have not yet revealed the subject.

And, for those of you Skeptics who are inclined to be nosy,

Dear Ashles,
You're one of the best and most frequent in typing up test procedures. Here's a question for you... I'm working on improving on the study procedure, since... since... I'M HAVING THE STUDY THIS SATURDAY! But don't tell anyone else. Although I've told three people already, I don't want to see this being verbally shredded on the Forums before it even takes place. I'd like for the opportunity to announce the study at the same time when I bring the results from the study. Would you agree that that is the very best? To ensure a more pleasant reception for my study? I did work hard on putting it together, and I want to discuss the results with Skeptics.

Anyhow, one of my claims is to be able to sense when a person needs to *empty their bladder*. In my perception of the other person I feel all the sensations that come with it from bladder pressure to all. Well, it is one of the questions that will be asked to the public who chooses to volunteer, currently it is stated as "Need to use restroom now" but I really need to be more specific. Ermh... that it is *bladder* and nothing else. Being from Sweden, I don't quite know how to best word this question? Do you have any suggestions?

VFF

I ended up calling it "Need to empty bladder". Solved it myself. UncaYimmy wouldn't give me any suggestions either he just yelled at me at Skype when I asked for his advice.

The second PM began "Thank you Ashles, I trust your valuable judgement and am considering it."
Now I don't think she will take on board my suggestions, but all of "our little gang" are more than able to have meaningful exchanges with Anita.

And, for those of you Skeptics who are inclined to just be curious,

Thank you Ashles, I trust your valuable judgement and am considering it. However it is not a test it is a study. And after reading only three persons according to somewhat of the study format I've already learned a lot that is very helpful toward my actual test with the IIG. I've learned that I can and prefer to see the person from behind than front, that I will most likely include "missing kidney" to the list of ailments, and all the other things I am learning that are useful for myself if perhaps not to the test protocol formation... that my perceptions are not due to my logical thinking but rather contradict with it, how long it takes for me to form the perceptions, what distance I require between me and the person, and so much more.

My investigation is not only about the test. It is also about me learning more about my interesting experience.

After the first study the next step is either,
1) The claim was falsified and obviously non-correlating with reality, or that it only picked up on ailments that even the controls could predict and that come with external symptoms and is nothing paranormal in any way. (Such a non-ability might slip through further, though.)
2) Plenty was learned from the study and the real test is next.
3) A second study is done and is an improved version of the first. This one will most likely not involve any of the subjective questions, or questions that occur to different extents such as "pain" and would focus on information that is necessary for the test protocol only.

While I value your opinions, I feel that they are based on the idea that my investigation would be all about the formal test and proving/falsifying the claim, whereas I am also interested in investigating my experience to learn more about how it works.

This might seem strange but remember that I claim to actually experience this, it is not something I made up. When I look at people I see images of tissue and organs and perceive that I feel what they feel. Whether imaginary or reality based, I think it's interesting.

Thank you Ashles,
VFF

I think you have rather misjudged the tone of these threads. Anita enjoys them hugely.

No Ashles, I am not enjoying these threads. But they are a necessarily evil in the open investigation of a paranormal claim. I wish it didn't have to be this hostile, but if that's the only way Skeptics and Claimants can talk about a paranormal claim, then what choice do I have?

 

[Chimera]

I was in protocol negotiations with the IIG until we both realized that I don't know whether I can work with a screen between me and the volunteers, and other vital information about how my claimed ability works under certain test conditions.

Actually, IIG's February 09 update states:

Anita Ikonen has been in negotiations with us for a psychic test protocol for over a year. We have had great difficulty in nailing down specific enough claims from Ms. Ikonen.

So, it's more than the "screen" problem that's been stopping their progress.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You're just acting real ridiculous. The study is the perfect next step in my investigation, even the Independent Investigations Group thought so!

That is a lie. The IIG said that you refused to come up with a testable claim and that you should do whatever it takes to have one. They did not endorse your study. They never even looked at it. They simply agreed with the notion that you have been wasting their time because you made a grand claim with no specifics.

The "study" could have been used as a test, but you refused.

I'll just call you delusional and mentally ill from now on. It seems to be ok to do so unfounded here.

If you are going to call me that, then I expect you to provide reasons. Here is a link to my opinion regarding your own self diagnosis.

I'm not throwing around these terms loosely.

And I did not mean Hon in a condescending way

You've been asked by several of us not to refer to us that way so don't.

So you don't think it is brilliant to design a detail for a procedure that enables the volunteers to remain perfectly anonymous with regard to their personal health information?

No more brilliant than firemen wearing hard hats.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I ended up calling it "Need to empty bladder". Solved it myself. UncaYimmy wouldn't give me any suggestions either he just yelled at me at Skype when I asked for his advice.

First, I did not yell. We were using instant messaging, not voice, and I never even typed in ALL CAPS. We'll call that one a lie.

Second, I told you repeatedly that your study is a waste of time and that I was not interested in helping you. Third, I specifically outlined why the whole "gotta pee" thing was ridiculous way back when you first suggested it. I have no interest in helping you find a way to ask a stupid question.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You do not have synesthesia.

Since when did you professionally diagnose me as not having synesthesia?!

I've never said that anyone was causing me "personal suffering," and I've never "retaliated" against anyone. And why do you keep inviting me to "leave these threads"? Do you want them all for yourself? Who's greedy now, eh?

Noo! Keep Moochie here! He's wonderful! I love his little tidbits of comments now and then!

Anita Ikonen has been in negotiations with us for a psychic test protocol for over a year. We have had great difficulty in nailing down specific enough claims from Ms. Ikonen.

So, it's more than the "screen" problem that's been stopping their progress.

www.visionfromfeeling.com/testprotocol.html

And I did not mean Hon in a condescending way

You've been asked by several of us not to refer to us that way so don't.

So don't call me delusional, mentally ill, fraud, scam, or a liar, because I have asked you not to refer to me in those ways so don't. Otherwise I will take the liberty of calling you Hon. At least mine's a nice word and intended in the nicest of ways.

No more brilliant than firemen wearing hard hats.

You're just humble. I think you're a good Skeptic and you make good suggestions, when you want to. And I have every right to think so of you and to spread lies praise about that.

Just here to argue?
That's simply troll behaviour.

Hm... so that's what it means... I might find use of that from now on.

 

[Ashles]

And, for those of you Skeptics who are inclined to be nosy,

You are free to paste my response too if you like.

I believe I was honest and civil in my response.

No Ashles, I am not enjoying these threads. But they are a necessarily evil in the open investigation of a paranormal claim. I wish it didn't have to be this hostile, but if that's the only way Skeptics and Claimants can talk about a paranormal claim, then what choice do I have?

It doesn't have to be any way.

You know exactly why the discussion is as it is - it is because you pretend to be here to ask for advice and then ignore every single useful piece of advice, suggestion, testing protocol, marking protocol etc.

You take only enough to create what you are repeatedly advised are useless and pointless tests.

So Anita we don't really know why you are here. It certainly isn't for our input.
You seem determined to use only protocols you have unilaterally agreed, you won't tell anyone about them beforehand and you sem to be the only one judging the results.
None of that is useful.

We have ignored your threads when there has been nothing more to say and you have bumped them back up with posts containing no new information.

It doesn't have to be this way with claimants and skeptics.

But unless a claimant comes to us with a well-thought out, clear cut test, that they are actually willing to submit themselves to, this is always the way it is.
Time after time we see people wanting to claim paranormal abilities, yet for some reason the testing just never happens.

The excuses change, the lack of testing rarely does.
So far you are firmly in the usual camp.

I have suggested several times you work on a decent test and only post when you actually have some results to share, but you are unable to do so. You need to keep telling us what you are planning etc.
There would only be a point to that if you listened to suggestions regarding planned tests.
It is beyond doubt noe that you do not listen to suggestions and actively ignore them.

Seriously, why not simply not post in any of these threads until you have a clear test to describe and some clear results to publish, free from your own interpretation or analysis?

That's how this should all work.

 

[Ashles]

I emailed with this person a couple of times over this exact point. The results should be either positive, or negative... any result that needs to be interpreted counts as negative as far as I'm concerned.

So am I right in thinking that's at least 3 people (Joe, UncaYimmy and myself) who indepensently who have been in contact with Anita prior to this study away from these forums?

Did she take on board any of the advice given?

We shall see...

 

[skeen]

Since when did you professionally diagnose me as not having synesthesia?!

Since when did anyone diagnose you as having synesthesia? This is how Science works. It's not up to me to prove you don't - though I could make a pretty damn good case of it.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

First, I did not yell. We were using instant messaging, not voice, and I never even typed in ALL CAPS. We'll call that one a lie.

Then you don't mind if I take the liberty of posting some relevant excerpts from our correspondence to better illustrate what the tone of your response to me was? To clear out this misconception of course.

Second, I told you repeatedly that your study is a waste of time and that I was not interested in helping you. Third, I specifically outlined why the whole "gotta pee" thing was ridiculous way back when you first suggested it. I have no interest in helping you find a way to ask a stupid question.

I am starting to feel strong suspicions against your agendas here on the Forum discussions about my claim... so, do you think the paranormal claim as a whole, is ridiculous? Is it of no potential interest to study a claimed ability of seeing and feeling supposedly undetectable health information in other people? If there was a real test set up for me with people sitting in a row, and I was asked "which of them had just emptied their bladders" and "which of them are in fairly urgent need to do so" and all ordinary means of detecting this were concealed, and... of course the test would have to have a time limit to it. Would that be of no interest?

*Not to be confused with this, or this. I just see it, I don't induce it.

 

[Ashles]

You're one of the best and most frequent in typing up test procedures. Here's a question for you... I'm working on improving on the study procedure, since... since... I'M HAVING THE STUDY THIS SATURDAY! But don't tell anyone else. Although I've told three people already, I don't want to see this being verbally shredded on the Forums before it even takes place. I'd like for the opportunity to announce the study at the same time when I bring the results from the study.

Also please note that Anita specifically wrote:

"I'd like for the opportunity to announce the study at the same time when I bring the results from the study"

Not one poster (of the presumably at least four contacted) mentioned anything until Anita posted

Alright my dear well-behaved and most patient Skeptical ladies and gentlemen. I've had the first real larger-scale study earlier this morning and afternoon. The results will be posted explicitly on my website www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html as soon as the material becomes available to me. I have left it in the reliable hands of the study participants so that none may ever suspect me of tampering with the data. The data will be presented as is and each may draw their own conclusions. I will of course be listing on my website all the things that I personally have learned and gained from the study.

The next step in my investigation will be either a second study, a real test of my claim, or the falsification and termination of this investigation, depending on how I interpret the results. A second study would focus on supposedly undetectable health information as well as the trying out of various forms of screens that are between me and the volunteers.

You said you would post the results when you announced the study. Yet not only didn't posts results, didn't even provide details of what the study was?

Again why? Why the constant need to share the promise of information?

And I note already the second study is proposed.

Still no test in sight.