Vision From Feeling

[Jeff Corey]

Did she really say she had a 4.0 average? Let me consult my magic synergistic crystals.

Hello, Magic Crystals , are you there?

"....*.......**.......*.**..zzzzap!"

No. They say that she has a 2.3 GPA and probably will never get a Bachelor's degree.

 

[desertgal]

If you can't stay on topic then find yourself another thread where you can discuss all the non-relevant topics regarding me as a claimant.

I also have to point out, Anita, what has been pointed out to you before: As long as posters obey the user agreement, they are free to respond as they will.

This thread is entitled "Vision From Feeling". Thus, I am posting within the titled topic, and I have not disobeyed the user agreement.

As well, you brought up your astonishing crime scene savvy here. I was responding to that. All within the line of discussion.

You are free to resent that, however.

 

[Belz...]

UncaYimmy:
With paranormal experiences.

I must've missed the part of the thread where you proved you have those abilities.

But, don't stop now. So far what I said you'd do is all coming true.

 

[Cuddles]

I was merely puzzled that you did not know it, since it is one of the most important parts in a Science study.

In all fairness to Anita, I don't think there is any need to continue questioning her claims about her education. It is entirely possible to gain a science degree without having any education in the scientific method and testing, depending on the subject studied. The important point is simply this - inanimate objects do not play tricks or have biases.

For example, say you want to find out if a particular substance emits certain wavelengths of light. You take a detector and put it in a box with the substance. If the detector beeps, it does. If not, it doesn't. End of story. There's no need to come up with complex protocols to eliminate possibilities such as someone swapping the sample while you're not looking, or to ensure your detector is is unbiased and in the right state of mind. Physics either works or it doesn't. Of course, that's not to say the scientific method isn't important. Once you get to post-grad level or, heaven forbid, a real job, things like replication and ensuring you've eliminated absolutely everything start to become much more important. And of course, other sciences have different emphasis on different things. Psychology, for example, has a very significant proportion dedicated to eliminating exactly the biases and perceptual errors that physics rarely has to worry about.

The point is, it is entirely possible for someone to be taking a course in science, especially those usually considered "hard" science, without being taught anything at all about the kind of scientific testing that is relevant to the claims being made here. I don't consider this a good thing, and I would have been much happier if my degree had involved more courses on critical thinking and the scientific method and less blind parroting, but that's just the way things are at the moment.

I see no reason to continue questioning Anita's education when there is no good reason to doubt it, there is evidence that she is telling the truth and it bears no relevance whatsoever to the claims being made. Her claims about physics will stand or fall regardless of what courses she is taking. And if it really comes down to an argument from authority, there are plenty of us here who are far bigger authorities and already have actual physics degrees and jobs that use them.

 

[Ashles]

The point is, it is entirely possible for someone to be taking a course in science, especially those usually considered "hard" science, without being taught anything at all about the kind of scientific testing that is relevant to the claims being made here. I don't consider this a good thing, and I would have been much happier if my degree had involved more courses on critical thinking and the scientific method and less blind parroting, but that's just the way things are at the moment.

Good points there. One of my main concerns is that there are generic 'science' courses now that seem so broad based that I question what use they really are.
I used to know a girl who had a generic science degree from Cambridge University. She knew a little about several fields but there was no depth to the knowledge. But more worryingly was the arrogance she displayed about these areas. She seemed unable to admit to having gaps in knowledge in any of these areas. She had done a single term on Psychology yet still insisted she knew pretty much the same as I did after a three year Honors degree in the subject. Discussions about details and specific research and subjects would be quickly diverted by her into more generalised discussions.
Normally I would say that the more people are exposed to science the better, but these type of courses have the danger of convincing some people they are more seriously involved in scientific study than they in fact are.
It's often easy for someone with a little science knowledge to convince people with no science knowledge that they know more than they do.

Having said that, I agree that there is no real reason to question whether Anita really is studying a science degree - I think that has been established beyond any point where it is worth doubting.

 

[Locknar]

I see no reason to continue questioning Anita's education when there is no good reason to doubt it, there is evidence that she is telling the truth and it bears no relevance whatsoever to the claims being made. Her claims about physics will stand or fall regardless of what courses she is taking. And if it really comes down to an argument from authority, there are plenty of us here who are far bigger authorities and already have actual physics degrees and jobs that use them.

Agreed, 101%

 

[Femke]

Cuddles and Ashles,
You are right, there is no point in doubting that Anita is studying science, and I don't doubt that she is. Thank you for showing me.
I just could not imagine that those studies do not protect their students against their own preconceptions, which might interfere with their interpretations of the data (of course the meter does not know what I expect, but I can dismiss the reading because it does not conform to my expectations, and that is bad science).

Anita, my apologies if it might have seemed that I doubt that you indeed do these studies. And if such subjects are not part of the curriculum, of course that is not your fault.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita, back to the synesthesia claim for a moment. On your website, you say that "the number 2 is orange." Do other numbers have color?

 

[Belz...]

5 Is blue, I'm sure. Zero HAS to be black, and I'll be damned if any of them is pink or brown!

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy post #983:
Thank you for designing such a perfect study procedure! You have spared me of several concerns I have had with the design! Your procedure even ensures that volunteers are able to reveal personal health information anonymously and without risk of harm! No disclaimer needs to be made! I can't thank you enough! I will make a little shrine about you on my webpage, honoring the work you have done! Thank you!

* Anyone can participate.

I will however change this to, volunteers have to be 18 years and older, to avoid some possible concerns.

I am also happy to announce that I do not see the need to advertise for volunteers! Why not just show up in a busy place and place a sign that asks for volunteers for the study, that way the study can be done right away! Advertising may be done for future studies, or in case the approach of just showing up doesn't work.

skeen:

I predict she will do it.

Of course I will do it.

Jeff Corey:

As one who tries to teach experimental design, I have to say your questionnaire and setup are just too complicated. You should not hand me the results you obtain (if ever) and ask me to statistically analyse them post hoc.
You must specify how you are going to analyze the results before hand, if they are not obvious.
In short, I would not test the claim that way.

This is a study, not a test. Some of the objectives of this study are, for me to gain more experience with the perceptions and in ways where the accuracy of my perceptions can be established. Of course even if I seem to be accurate in my medical perceptions, it can not conclude extrasensory perception since the study does not take place under test conditions, and cold reading is available. The study can not conclude in favor of ESP. The study can however provide indication if it is not the case of an ESP ability, since if I do poorly on this study which is like a "badly designed test", then there is probably no point in proceeding toward a real test that has better controls and would be "even harder to pass". The study should provide with a list of what health information I can claim to accurately detect, and from this list, suitable ones can be selected to a future test design. The study should also reveal the extent of how much information I do not detect, which should tell us about how many volunteers are needed for a test, since, if I have to make 10 claimed perceptions on a test and the study had revealed that I only detect it roughly 33% of the time when it is considered to be present, then we would need at least 30 volunteers for that test. The study will also provide with documented examples of my perceptions, and these will no longer be considered just anecdotes, since skeptics are present to verify how they took place. These examples will be documented in writing, and maybe also with pictures and/or video.

We can not prepare ourselves for how the results of the study will be statistically analyzed, since we can not predict the quantity, or type, of results the study will bring. Based on the study, a stronger and clearer paranormal claim will be made, since if we proceed, it has once again failed to be falsified, and more knowledge of the claim is available to make a more specific claim. And this makes a future test easier to arrange.

OK, . If the local skeptics can locate 20 volunteers that either have a condition she says she can detect, 10 who have it and 10 who do not., then under the tightly controlled conditions that you suggest (double blind) she gets to choose who has the condition without any feedback whatsoever.
The appropriate test would be Fisher's exact probability test.
For example, of the 10 who have it, suppose she gets 8 right, or hits and 2 false posititives. Of the 10 who don't have it, 6 false positives and 4 false alarms.
Signal detection theory could help us out here, because there is a tendency to say "yes" whether there is a signal or not.
However, there must not be any way she can say "I don't know" and not that have that counted as a miss or wrong response.
That's been her out all along.

What you describe here is a test, and not a study. And unless I discover from a study that I can positively claim to detect every case of an ailment, I should definitely be allowed to pass, to answer "I don't know" on a test. Each ailment occurs to a different extent in different people, however there is no way for me to describe how I perceive this extent so that test arrangers could select volunteers who would fall into the range of "detectable" for me. On a test, once I claim to perceive health information, that claim is then open to be checked for accuracy and if it is incorrect then I have made myself responsible for a miss, that counts against the possibility of having an ESP ability. So even with being allowed to answer "I don't know" the test is still falsifiable.

UncaYimmy post #991:
Once again, brilliant and perfect! I will be using your study design very soon.

* Don't provide your name or your website.

I would like to provide some form of reference to the volunteers, so that if another study is carried out later and in a different location, the volunteers can be asked whether they've already participated and they can remember if they have, based on the name or reference that was given. I'd prefer to ask volunteers to not participate a second time.

And just so you're prepared, expect people here to call you on your sudden concern about legal issues. What you have done with your friends and family has opened you to potential liability. To them you have claimed 100% accuracy in everything you have read and provided medical information. Since you have presented yourself as an expert with an excellent record of results, it is reasonable for people to act (or not act) based on what you have told them.

Granted, I think it would be a tough case to prove, but the chances of liability are far greater with what you've done up to this point than anything you have proposed for the future.

How rude to incorrectly assume that I'd done such a terrible thing and to then throw it at me! Haven't you read the countless of posts where I describe how I tell friends who I ask to attempt a psychic reading with, "Although I've not been confirmed wrong yet, I could be wrong this time, and just in case I am you have to treat everything I say as nonsense." I really do say this to people and I've been very careful to do so! How on earth do you assume that I'd done otherwise, when I haven't? It is rude.

desertgal:

But, I will give Anita credit for taking precautions now, even though she didn't before.

Ahem.

I am curious as to what she means by "legal representative", though. If you mean attorney, Anita, then say "attorney". For all we know, "legal representative" could mean a paralegal or a legal assistant - in which case, any advice they give would be suspect, since they aren't fully versed in the relevant laws.

Either an attorney or the police. I've said "legal representative" to make a more general statement as I haven't decided who to contact yet.

Ashles:

In your obsession with responding to absolutely every single sentence posted now (...)

Sometimes if I don't respond to questions and comments, I get yelled at about that too. Everything I do is wrong, and everything I don't do is also wrong. So I'll just do what I think is right, by trying to clear out misconceptions about me and to answer to questions regarding this investigation, even if it results in "wall of texts".

I know that frogs and toads can exhibit aggressive behavior, however in my perception they do not engage with as much aggressive emotion and thought as many other animals do when they want to be violent.

Please show an example of your vibrational algebra. You can use example data to demonstrate.
Go into as much detail as you like. You can do these calculations - please show us how.

Although I know what I perceive and how I understand vibrational structures, I have not learned the appropriate science terminology yet and until I do I would have to explain everything in my own words and in a lengthier way. Also I can not reveal my research ideas, you'll be reading about them in my science publications like everyone else a few years from now.

Give an example.
What 'electronic instuments'?

The ones I will work with haven't been built yet. I will build them. They are instruments that generate light structures that contain detail and produce more specific and more complex structured effects in the physical world.

Unless it's the ones who ruffle your hair, laugh and say "Oh yeah 'Vibrational information' well done" and carry on walking.

If a Physicist laughed at the idea of vibrational information after I've described what it entails I'd have them fired for incompetence and stupidity.

Which plant, which chemical.

A dark variety of the jade plant,

I couldn't possibly know the name of the chemical, even though I am learning to perceive the electron field distribution across a molecule and to depicher it into its corresponding atoms and chemical bonds to perceive the image of the molecular structure as it is drawn in science.

What's the plant, what's the molecule?

A small orange mushroom that was growing in a dry place in full sunlight on a rock.

Similar in color to this picture, but with a very narrow stem and flat on the top. If I had a book of Swedish mushrooms I could pick out the exact species. And again, I don't know what chemical. I do perceive the general shape and electron distribution of a molecule, as well as a general understanding of atomic composition and atomic distribution, but this is an ability that needs to grow stronger until I can just point at a molecule and draw it out and give its chemical name.

I have a fun one for you guys, if you can handle it... I was once looking at various images that are produced with the Scanning Electron Microscope. I was looking at a particular one and started to feel effects in my body that I've never experienced before. I don't know whether the effects became physical so to be occurring in my body for real, or whether they were just perceptions of physical response that I was experiencing. I felt as if my pupils got larger and something happened to my energy level, muscles, and nerves. Without knowing it I was looking at a microscopic image of Cannabis. Once I checked the name for what the picture depicted it made sense. Earlier I had been looking at magnifications of insect bodies so I had no way of expecting a drug. So somehow, (and yes, another claim) I can look at the detailed structure of things and relate it to its properties, and combining that with the structure of a human body I can perceive the combined effect. Of course I've never used this drug by the way. And, by the way, many of you have probably wondered at least once by now whether I've used drugs and whether any of these perceptions and experiences might be drug-induced. The answer is no. I've not used drugs and don't even smoke or drink alcohol.

If you ignore all of the above please just provide an example of your 'Vibrational calculations'.
Any one that you have done.
Use example data if you like.

Well I do not rush into a laboratory to test all of my perceptions, because this is how a person who treats their perceptions in an objective manner behaves.

Provide a proper worked example of this from initial data and values through to results that tranlate 'back into real worls physical things' and how they do so.

I will do this a few years from now in the science lab, with real conventional mathematics to which I apply my concepts of vibrations.

Let's try and introduce some real science and maths into all the vague generalisations.

And most of my ideas are top secret until patented and published rightfully in my honor.

 

[GeeMack]

I just detect the quantum physics vibrational aspect of the atoms that make the tissue with my sense of feeling which then constructs the images in my mind.

You can say this, in all seriousness? You do understand, don't you, why so many here think you're delusional?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Moochie:

"Anita," when can we expect a denouement to this internet novel of yours? Interested readers of science fiction wish to know.

I expect to have the first study either this week or next weekend January 16-18, and to conclude based on it that the claim has been falsified or to proceed toward further studies/tests.

desertgal:

Paranormal beliefs. You haven't proven that any of your paranormal fantasies actually happened.

I experience the perceptions. The question is whether the perceptions are formed from some sort of subjective imagination, or whether they are based on information from our real mutual world. They're not beliefs, I'm being objective. I've begun this investigation due to apparent accuracy - which I understand is not necessarily actual accuracy - and so far I've failed to dismiss the possibility of ESP.

Locknar:

There is that "wiggle" again; previously you said you saw the vas deferens had been severed (my paraphrasing) and mentioned NOTHING about scars, surrounding tissue, etc....now you mention "tissue that has been operated on looks different." This would be along the lines of a "after, after the fact" explanation.

Then disregard that "after, after the fact" explanation. The test will specify exactly what details I would be required to write down with my answer and there will be no opportunity to fill in any explanations afterwards that would be considered. You can't expect me to describe every minute detail of my medical perceptions all at once and in every case. Would you like to know about the color of the tissue I saw, for instance? I don't think either of us can add or subtract anything from these anecdotes at this point. They are what they are, and the upcoming study will provide with some other anecdotes soon, and these will be verified by attending skeptics, you know, people just like you!

"We"...who is "we", you and the parrot on your shoulder?

We as in me and my skeptics. You and me, Locknar.

All that can be concluded is you had a 1:6 chance of guessing right, and that you may or may not have since (as you note) you did nothing to validate the claim and offer nothing to validate your campfire story ever took place.

And, all that we conclude is that I failed to falsify the paranormal claim in that example. We conclude that I could have guessed it wrong with 5:6 chance. These anecdotes simply give you guys examples of what I claim to have experienced. I already know that they are not verified examples. The study will provide with documented examples, that are verified by attending skeptics.

Yet again, "wiggle" appears...you claim to see on a atomic level, yet the only apparent thing you can "see" related to heart bypass is a "vertical scar on the chest"? My...that seems awfully ambiguous.

The scar is what I detected first. I could have chosen to look for further information and did not look at the heart.

EVERY single event you claim can be explained via other means; you simply choose to link them to "woo woo."

I understand this comment, and it is a very important one. However there have been experiences with perceptions whose accuracy has been confirmed by other means, and where cold reading should not have been available. The interesting thing is that I've not been incorrect, and that I perceive images of tissue. So I proceed toward a test. And that is all we have concluded. (Yes, we, me and my skeptics.)

So rather then ask family/friends to come forward and thus establish credibility AND be well on your way to claiming the MDC, you continue to waffle, delay, etc.

No Hon, what I do is to rather proceed with the study, to provide you with documented examples and verified by skeptics who'll be present. I'm going in the right direction, forwards, rather than backwards.

We are talking about validating a "power"/ability that has never been shown to exist in the entire existence of the human race...surly if asked at least one of them would be willing to step forward?

I know they would be willing to step forward, but I choose not to involve my family and friends in this discussion. This discussion has, at times, been somewhat uncomfortable and I refuse to bring my loved ones here. Please understand that. Especially since we're approaching to have a study where documented examples will be provided and be of much better quality than my past anecdotes, for instance by having skeptics present.

Real scientists keep written diaries, document corroborating information, etc.; a blog outlining your perceptions/memory of events is nothing more then fantasy (ie. campfire stories).

The far past experiences were not in a diary. The most recent examples were in the observations page on my website, yet they are criticized for being "just anecdotes" when that's what they are. The study will provide with better documented examples. Instead of trying to extract more out of the past experiences, let's focus on the upcoming ones instead.

Perhaps. I conducted a survey yesterday and found that it was hard for me to have to look at a person for longer than 2 seconds, because that felt like staring. To me staring is as rude as name calling or spitting on people. I am from Sweden and our culture is different from American culture. We do not talk to strangers and you do not look at people you don't know.

Just more "wiggle", and planting of explanations should you fail.

No, it is true that I feel like I am being rude if I stare at people. And that is why the study will be good because persons will volunteer and will allow me to stare for a moment. Think as you please, but at least I don't have to insult anyone.

But perceptions of chemical identification occur much less frequently, and when I have a test at home it takes a great deal of effort to force tens of perceptions within an hour when normally I might have one in a week and I get a bad headache and nausea.

Excuses.

Yes, excuses, because that's the truth of it.

Not surprising, because pursuit offers enough "wiggle", delay, and excuses to perpetuate the fantasy (that is to say, attribute normal every day events to "woo woo").

There will be no "wiggle" on a formal test, I assure you. No testing organization or persons, including myself as the claimant, would allow for a test with your so called wiggle. I am not happy about the delay and have been working as fast as I can. The study will be conducted soon. Very soon. There is no fantasy, I perceive medical images which when I've checked for accuracy have appread to be accurate and even in cases where I can not imagine the conventional source of information, and that is why I proceed toward a real test to find their actual accuracy. No fantasy there, just an investigation into the perceptions.

 

[desertgal]

You can say this, in all seriousness? You do understand, don't you, why so many here think you're delusional?

Nope. She just doesn't get it. Amazing, isn't it? The most astonishing person to ever walk the planet, and she falls down on that particular point.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

1000th post!

Congratulations Locknar for making the 1000th post on my thread!
You've won a dosen red roses

And a FREE psychic reading with VFF!

And here's for a 1000 more... ​

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

Okay. You believe you have had paranormal experiences. I believe that you have had normal experiences. My belief is backed up with scientific explanations. Your belief is not.

I have not concluded that I've had paranormal experiences. I was just emphasizing that the perceptions are experiences rather than beliefs. And they were not normal experiences. It is not normal to look at a person and be able to accurately describe medical information that is normally considered to be inaccessible to perception or to the many forms of cold reading. And my only belief based on these perceptions is to proceed to a proper test to find out, and that in itself is a scientific approach.

That doesn't describe you at all since you have not used the scientific method to investigate your experiences. Pseudoscientist would be a good label in that pseudoscience is "any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method."

And what specificly did I do to not follow the scientific method? Was it when I was able to remain objective and rational when I had an unusual experience of seeing images from the inside of human bodies which appeared to correlate with actual health information? Or was it when I then decided to find out whether there is any correlation rather than to assume that there was based on how it seemed to be? Or is it when I am working with scientists and skeptics to design a test to find out?

I agree with you that as far as the evidence is concerned, ESP and a mind control device implanted by your mother, an Illuminati agent, are on equal ground and have not been disproven.

However, as a practical matter, both ideas are extremely unlikely.

Not at all. My perceptions are either due to normal, or paranormal, sources. One category of sources, or the other. ESP is my synonym for paranormal sources. Experiences have compelled me toward a test to find out whether the source of the perceptions are normal or paranormal. I've had everyday experiences where I can not determine what the normal source would have been, and I have confidence in a scientific test to reveal which it is.

Ashles:

If you ignore all of the above please just provide an example of your 'Vibrational calculations'.
Any one that you have done.
Use example data if you like.

For instance I have the general vibrational aspect of a human being available to me, which is somewhat the average healthy person based on past experiences of perceiving the vibrational aspect of several people. I can then look at a new medicine that I have not seen before, and download its vibrational aspect. I can then combine these two in my mind's awareness and they interact into a resulting vibrational aspect that shows the superposition of both and shows what the effect of the medicine is on this average human body. I've done this with a pill that I was later told is a diuretic. I perceived its effects to be a serious liver toxin, which causes the body to panic and flush it out through the kidneys and urine with excessive amounts of water, which then ends up acting as a diuretic, or dehydrant if you ask me. This is an example of vibrational addition. I do these calculations in my mind but in a project in my career or in my own time I will attempt to translate some of this into real, conventional mathematics that involves calculations with vibration.

I look forward to your evasion and reason why you are unable to do this.

I just gave you such an example. I started out with the human being, and with the medicine, combined their vibrational aspects into a resulting vibrational aspect, which I translated back into the medicinal effects of liver toxin and dehydrant, otherwise known as 'diuretic'. That's what the vibrational calculations are about. They occur in my perception, however I will attempt a science project of applying this into conventional mathematics of vibration.

Sorry to sound harsh but what kind of scientific degree allows you to skip statistics?

The B.S. Chemistry as well as the B.S. Physics at my university. Differential Equations, Linear Algebra and Matrices, Calculus 3 and Calculus 4 are all more highly recommended for the Physics degree. Statistics is a highly recommended math elective, but we are given options of taking other math courses depending on where we are headed in our careers. Pre-Medical students typically do take statistics. I will study up on statistics once I'm on the Masters level, I don't intend to skip it.

Proper research will make you a 'scientist' and as we have seen you are a long way from that are the moment.
And at the moment you are not 'being studied' either.

I am a scientist in my own investigation, and I am being studied by myself.

desertgal:

I think your fantasies, your strong belief in these fantasies, and your willingness to depict yourself as the most extraordinary person in the history of mankind is disgusting and distasteful, and says a lot more about your character than we could ever judge.

The fact that you call my interest in having a scientific study of my medical perceptions a "fantasy", and the fact that you think I have a strong belief that the perceptions would be based on the real, mutual world, and the fact that you think I'm wanting to depict myself as the most extraordinary person, is disgusting and distasteful.

UncaYimmy:

On your web page and quoted below, it is very clear that you wrote everything about your observation in the singular, not the plural. You said that you did not know in advance "what part" was operated on. You said it was not a "simple incision" but that "a section" had been removed.

I regret that I wasn't more specific in describing my medical perceptions of the vasectomy. I can claim to have indeed seen two, but I do realize that at this point and afterwards this statement does not have the same credibility as it would have, had I realized to include this detail into my description right from the start. I can only assure you that I perceived two and that this, too, is part of my claim of what I saw. And as such it is just a claim, and I am proceeding toward study and tests to prove this entire multitude of what my claim is.

If you would be more precise in your writing, this wouldn't happen. If you saw two vas deferentia, say so.

To me it was so obvious that there are two that it would have been like stating the obvious. After all, I've studied Human Anatomy at college so I definitely knew there are two. To me it is as obvious and would have been like having to specify that a person had two eyes or two arms or one nose!

If you use breast implants as an example, you had better point out if you see one or two. Not everyone with implants gets both done. It's typical to get both, but for a number of reasons some women only get one.

Good point in this case, and that will be done.

Without knowing what to look for, you were able to determine that instead of a simple cut, a piece was actually removed. Those pieces were mostly no longer than a few millimeters. If that's what you can do, it stands to reason that you can also detect clips, clamps, ties, and cauterization.

Actually I will never claim to be able to detect something that I have no specific experience of detecting. Not all things are equal to this 'ability' as they would seem to have to be. For instance, I do not detect all types of cancer, just because they all go by the same name. Each thing is very unique. The study should present some testable health information that I am confident in.

If you can't, then how exactly would you know a vasectomy was performed?

I knew because the vas deferens (on both sides!!!) had been cut and a piece removed and there was a gap (on both!!!).

Coveredinbeeees post #1010:
That is a wonderful test protocol and thank you. I look forward to trying this with crystals, after all they are what have the strongest "vibrational signature" and are what I trained myself up with in the very beginning years ago. I will definitely look into this, meanwhile the main claim of medical perceptions and its upcoming study remain my first priority, but the crystal identification test will definitely also receive attention. If I am very effective (although this is getting ahead of ourselves) I may also be able to distinguish the different types of crystals by their vibrational signature. There are many options here to look into, thank you for bringing it up!

Akhenaten:
It's some of that European punctuation error that UncaYimmy explained earlier, sorry about that.

Professor Yaffle:

The Bull**** Detective on UK TV did an episode on crystal healers in which they did a test to see if they could detect the type of crystal without visual information (noe of them could). There were clips on YouTube, but they seem to have been deleted. I will see if I can find a detailed description, or a video from elsewhere.

And I will make the claim of being able to detect the location of crystals without visual information only if I have an experience that indicates toward the possibility. Thank you, would love to see these tests that have been done before with other people.

desertgal:

Do the powers that be at your university know that you are so out of touch with reality?

How rude. When I look at people I see images of organs and tissue in my mind. There is nothing wrong with that in itself. Most people for instance "hallucinate" by experiencing random thoughts in their head that they can't control and I don't even have that. And, like I've said, I've not concluded that the perceptions would be based on information from the real world. All I've said is that my experience is that the perceptions have been accurate and that I need a test to reveal whether they are based on cold reading or what else. And I allow this investigation to take place based on having experienced accurate perceptions where I can not see what the cold reading source would have been.

Now, who is being silly? It's not a matter of seeing through a shirt, Anita. I've seen the beginning of a surgical scar in men when their shirts are unbuttoned. I've seen the scar through light, semi-transparent fabric, such as undershirts, and I've seen the scar with men who weren't wearing shirts. Anyone can do that.

Based on what the person was wearing this possibility does not seem applicable in my case.
Thank you for the "wall of text". Glad to know I'm not the only one.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

nathan:

Anita, you keep claiming you're not hallucinating, because you have perceptions. That's a necessary but insufficient condition. Hallucinations are perceptions in the absence of stimuli. You need to prove the emboldened bit is false, to rule out hallucinations.

The stimulus is when I look at a person. I need to look at the person to locate what I experience being the source of the information, so in this regard and based on how I experience it, I would not define the perceptions as being hallucinations. Thank you for bringing us the definition.

skeen:

And she still claims she has synesthesia, when clearly she does not. I'm willing to bet there has been no medical diagnosis of this. And to add: what kind of a Scientist would make unfounded claims like this?

That's like asking you to see a doctor and get a diagnose before you can claim to have hit your toe and to be experiencing an ache in your foot. I'd expect synesthesia to be a common thing like this and I already know how I associate things in a way according to how synesthesia is described. Synesthesia is not a paranormal claim, so everyone, leave it at that.

Anita, you are far, far less scientific than most here. It's sad that you're gaining no useful knowledge from your education. Even a very basic level of scientific thinking evades you, hence your consistent leaps to the paranormal when you can't explain something.

If you had my experiences you'd understand.

Does this enter into reality for you? Does this sound reasonable, and likely? Where is your sense of logic? (And on the note of logical thinking, you do not have ESP, and this is a fair, and scientific conclusion.)

You can absolutely not definitely conclude that I do not have ESP. You can state that it would be highly unlikely, but seriously, you haven't seen the experiences I've had. I've not concluded that I have ESP. I've just concluded that I think that based on my experiences it is worth the time and work to set up a test to find out.

EDIT: And even further to these claims, you've made claims about spirits and all sorts of other nonsense. You are not a Scientist by any stretch of the imagination. You are the anti-Scientist, a "woo", clearly cut. That you would claim to be a Scientist is an insult to our intelligence, and to real Scientists, and students.

You don't seem to realize what my actual experiences and perceptions are. Whether my perceptions are subjective, or paranormal, or just cold reading or what else, there is nothing unscientific about having them. I have not concluded about them having an actual paranormal origin, I've just said that there has been confirmed accuracy and the lack of confirmed inaccuracy, and all I conclude based on that, is to have a scientific test, and that is how a scientist thinks. Because there've been experiences where I don't see what the cold reading source would have been.

Locknar:

This makes no sense at all; you have a publicly available website and identified the university you attend (here and on other forums) so why the resistance to involve your university?

Bring me a quote where I identify the school I attend, as I am quite sure I have made very sure not to do so. I don't want to involve my university in a paranormal subject because many times it is an unconventional subject and is negatively associated. I might involve other universities into this later on if a strong good reason for doing so is revealed, but still I will not allow involvement from mine.

I suspect the reason is obvious, if you did in 5 min they could arrange and conduct a test conclusively proving you have no "powers" or special ability (other then a over active imagination).

No Locknar, I just want to focus on my studies when I'm at my university. If another university other than mine wants to take part in this investigation, they are free to do so. I am not resistant to tests and conclusions.

Rather you pursue your fantasy by avoiding any and all credible scientific methods via your website, your campfire stories, skeptic groups you "work" with (yet never yield any results), avoid any and all conclusive tests ("cereal test", "crystal test"), etc.

I was specifically requested to write down examples of my medical perceptions, the so called "anecdotes" or "campfire stories", and now I am criticized for having done so. Furthermore you criticize me for the lengthy time in my work with the IIG West, when it is entirely they who take months between replies whereas I always reply in full within the next day and have complied to all of their requests (except the one about music which I will need to consider and discuss more) and not presented any complications. As for the other skeptics group, they said that I need to bring a more specific claim. This specificity does not come from the everyday experiences, so it is something I did not have from the start and it is something I now need to investigate, and that is what the soon-to-be study is for. I am not avoiding tests. The cereal test gives me a serious headache and nausea. And I will try the crystal test, yet while not taking away from my time and efforts in the main claim, because if I did that the complaints would be never-ending. You're just impatient, that's all. Oh, and everything I do is wrong. Whether I do it or not.

All your efforts have yielded exactly ZERO in the way of credible results.

And I know that.

 

[Uncayimmy]

How rude to incorrectly assume that I'd done such a terrible thing and to then throw it at me! Haven't you read the countless of posts where I describe how I tell friends who I ask to attempt a psychic reading with, "Although I've not been confirmed wrong yet, I could be wrong this time, and just in case I am you have to treat everything I say as nonsense." I really do say this to people and I've been very careful to do so! How on earth do you assume that I'd done otherwise, when I haven't? It is rude.

Please refrain from stating your opinions about whether I am rude or not. I'm not interested nor will it change what I have to say. We're having an open, frank and hopefully scientific discussion. If I am mistaken, simply correct me. If you disagree with me, that's fine. That's how I treat you.

You effectively told someone, "I think you have a potentially serious and fatal heart problem and should see a doctor. And although I've never been wrong, don't take me seriously."

You specifically presented yourself as an expert by saying you have never been wrong. You take yourself so seriously that you took the action of making a recommendation because you believed that person's life to be in danger.

The only "but" you gave was to say that you could be wrong. Of course you could be wrong. That goes without saying. No reasonable person can expect someone to be right 100% of the time. So, saying you could be wrong is, in effect, meaningless.

Your request to not be taken seriously is in direct contradiction to your recommendation that someone in fact should take you seriously and see a doctor. If you're not serious, don't make any recommendations and certainly don't tell people you've never been wrong.

Effectively you told the guy, "I could be wrong, but if I'm not, you could die." That's a pretty serious recommendation.

I'm not saying there is a real liability here, but let me present a hypothetical scenario:

Suppose this guy also read your website where you make vritually no mention whatsoever that you could be wrong or that you should not be taken seriously. He sees what seems to be a scientific explanation with all the talk about vibrational information. He sees your written claim that you've never been wrong. He sees that you take it so seriously that you are conducting "studies" and staunchly defending your claim.

So, he goes to the doctor and gets tested. The doc finds nothing. So he gets a second opinion. Still nothing. So he demands exploratory surgery because he figures that since you "saw" this fatty tissue in his heart that the doctors should also take a look. After all, you've never been wrong. You're a scientist who is "brilliant" and gets a 4.0 average in school. And you really and truly saw this fatty tissue in the heart just like you've seen numerous other ailments and have never been wrong.

He dies under the knife due to a rare reaction to anesthesia. There was no negligence by the doctors.

It turns out this guy's only surviving family member is yours truly, UncaYimmy. I decided that you were reckless in giving him the advice you did. I decide to sue you. I present to the judge everything on your website and in the threads here.

In civil court they rule on a preponderance of the evidence (who is more likely to be right).

Question #1: Did Anita present herself as an expert?

Me: Look at all this stuff she he was written about her accuracy. Thousands upon thousands of words. She even created a website and answered this question she asked herself: "How am I convinced that my ability is real and not just imagination?"

You: But I said, "I could be wrong, so don't take me seriously."

Judge: UncaYimmy met his burden of proof.

Question #2: Was Anita qualified to give this kind of advice?

Me: She has never had her alleged ability independently verified by a third party.

You: At the time I gave the advice I was preparing to do a study and try to have my abilities verified. I acknowledged publicly that my ability was not yet verified. However, I have never been wrong. That is, until now.

Judge: Point to UncaYimmy.

Question #3: Did Anita have reason to believe she was qualified and therefore acting in good faith?

Me: She told people not to take her seriously, so obviously there was some doubt in her mind. She was attempting to get tested, which also indicates doubt. Every skeptic she encountered told her that her evidence was unreliable. She was advised that at best it was her imagination coupled with cold reading. At worst she as told to seek psychiatric help for possible delusions. She made feeble attempts at verifying her ability with rudimentary chemical detection, but those tests were poorly constructed. When given much more scientifically valid protocols to follow, she discontinued testing.

You: Up until this time I had never been verified as incorrect. Therefore, I felt it was my duty to inform the person that I found a potentially life threatening condition. If I hadn't, I would have felt that to be negligent.

Judge: Point to UncaYimmy.

Question #4: Was Anita negligent?

Judge: By a preponderance of the evidence I find that Anita was negligent in giving this advice. At the same time the deceased should have listened more strongly to the advice of his doctors. Without the surgery, he wouldn't have died that day. I find Anita to be 40% responsible for this person's death.

Of course, you will wonder what would have happened had you been right about the fatty tissue in his heart. I still would have brought the suit, and I still would have won. Why? Because you did present yourself as an expert, you were not qualified to make that call, and you should have known you weren't qualified.

How could you have avoided liability? Easy. First, you should have said, "There's a little game I like to play where I guess things about a person's health. It's just for fun. I've never actually scientifically studied the accuracy of what I think I see. Do you want to play along?"

Then you should have told him what you saw. If he had asked, "should I see a doctor?" you should have replied, "I told you this was for fun and not scientific. I have no opinion either way."

You should also amend your website to make it extremely clear that you have not had anything verified ever. Don't even tell anyone that you've had people tell you that you were right. The only reason to tell people that is to convince them that what you have is something worthy of testing. The only person who has to believe that is you, so quit trying to convince everyone else. After you have done scientific testing, you can post those results, but not until then.

Don't offer any explanations as to how you think it works. Doing so implies that you have a scientific belief about the mechanisms involved. You shouldn't form a theory until you have proven that there is something about which you can form a theory.

And most importantly, don't say things like, "I see organs, tissues, cells, and chemicals." Instead say, "while I have no independent proof, I believe what I am seeing is <whatever>. It could also be imagination. I hope someday to know definitively if my perceptions are real or imaginary."

Better still, take down your website because there is no value in sharing your perceptions at this point. As you said, people should not take you seriously and treat what you say as nonsense.

And we all know there's enough nonsense out there already.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

tsig:

So far the only effort I have seen involves dancing around the issues and dodging tests.

Not at all. At first I was in a waiting game for a year and a half with the IIG West, and still am, bless their hearts. Then I met with a local skeptics group who advised me to learn more about my perceptions in order to bring to them a more specific claim, and I've taken that advice to heart and will have a study this week or next for this purpose. A test will take place (unless the claim is falsified before the test takes place). Impatience, that's all.

UncaYimmy:

Synesthesia is certainly testable to a large degree, but unrelated to your claims about the medical stuff. That alleged ability is clearly NOT synesthesia based on the diagnostic criteria I have read and your descriptions.

Thank you for the informative link. I was just saying that I think I already have some extent of synesthesia. Whether it then is involved in the perceptions I do not know, although I've noticed some resemblance in how I look at a person and obtain felt information, that is then converted into visual images in my mind, and sometimes with new types of feeling, sound, scent, or taste. This association of one type of information into other types reminds me of synesthesia. It is still a question of how the initial information that starts the whole process, is acquired. Whether it is acquired through ordinary senses, cold reading, or extrasensory perception, which then undergoes something similar to synesthesia to be converted into other forms of information that were not initially perceived.

desertgal:

As well, I think, there would be some concern on behalf of the faculty and/or other students over Anita's inability to differentiate reality from fantasy. Afer all, as Skeen pointed out, she is "claiming to be magic (by our current understanding of science), and therefore the most significant person in the entire world; as well as being a genius eligible for the Nobel Prize." In this post Columbine/Virginia Tech era, that might be considered a red flag. It would, if nothing else, prompt several people to take a closer look. She may be electing not to involve her university to prevent just that.

You're being ridiculous. When I look at people I see images of organs and tissue, and when I describe the health information I perceive, there is apparent accuracy. I am now conducting an investigation to find out what the source of that accurate information is, whether it is "normal" or "paranormal", and to find out what the actual accuracy is. There is nothing wrong with doing this. I've never made the claims you say, you guys are making things up. Besides, I've confided in three of my favorite professors about the perceptions and my interest in investigating them.

Femke:

So, my question is: did you get a course in how to design experiments, confirmation bias, blinding, etc. And why can't you see that you are going about it in the reverse direction?

No I have not had an entire course dedicated to experimental design. It has been briefly mentioned in several courses, and possibly will appear again later in my studies. And that is partly why I am here. Could everyone stop harassing me for my shortcomings and just help me out instead? I said from the very beginning that I'm here to get some help in test design. Like UncaYimmy did, and as far as I know he's not formally a scientist, but his study design is just impeccable.

Please clarify what you're trying to tell me here, you've made brilliant contributions before and I really want to know. Instead of trying to explain why my approach is inappropriate, could you present an example of the appropriate approach in the study of this particular subject?

Jeff Corey:

No. They [Jeff's "magic crystals"] say that she has a 2.3 GPA and probably will never get a Bachelor's degree.

Don't make me send you a transcript! Or force you to attend my graduation a few years from now! Twice! (Two B.S. degrees.)

desertgal:

I also have to point out, Anita, what has been pointed out to you before: As long as posters obey the user agreement, they are free to respond as they will.

Of course, but very often posts are moved when they become off topic.

Belz post #1023:

I must've missed the part of the thread where you proved you have those abilities.

But, don't stop now. So far what I said you'd do is all coming true.

In the post to UncaYimmy which you are referring to, I was merely specifying that it is not the case of beliefs, but of experiences. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's what you'd want me to say. But then you don't want me to say it. If I say "experiences", you want me to say "beliefs". If I'd say "beliefs", you'd want me to say "experiences". Everything I do is wrong whether I do it or not.

Cuddles:
Thank you for supporting me. By the way did you say you have a Physics degree and do you work in Physics? Please feel free to send me a PM to tell me more, I'd love to know.

Ashles:
Regarding someone else not me,

(...) She seemed unable to admit to having gaps in knowledge in any of these areas. (...)

I came here and admitted from the start that my skills in experimental design and statistics are insufficient and that I'm here to get some help from you guys since some of you are good at these subjects. Why am I accused of having stated otherwise? (Not necessarily by you, Ashles.)

Again, regarding someone else,

(...)She had done a single term on Psychology yet still insisted she knew pretty much the same as I did after a three year Honors degree in the subject. (...)

One of the things you'd find about me is that I am very humble when it comes to those who know more than me. There is nothing I admire more in this stage of life than real Physicists, and I know how little I know and how much more there is for me to learn. When I express ideas of research in concepts of vibration for instance, that are based on my perceived experiences, it is not to sound superior, all they are are interests that's all. Interests within topics that in themselves are highly regarded, not to say that I'd be highly regarded just for having interest in them.

About someone else I hope?

It's often easy for someone with a little science knowledge to convince people with no science knowledge that they know more than they do.

I've already admitted that UncaYimmy is far superior to me in designing a study protocol for my claim! It doesn't even take a scientist or a science degree but other skills that aren't taught or learned at school. If it weren't for him I'd still be worrying about how to avoid the concern of people having to share openly their personal health information, and how to write a disclaimer. I'm here for assistance in the investigation, and I regret if it had ever seemed otherwise.

Femke:

I just could not imagine that those studies do not protect their students against their own preconceptions, which might interfere with their interpretations of the data

Alright don't even go there. The way I deal with my perceptions is an entirely different thing than how I deal with data in my studies or career. This is an independent study and reveals nothing about how I'd handle data in a professional situation. Don't even go there.

Anita, my apologies if it might have seemed that I doubt that you indeed do these studies. And if such subjects are not part of the curriculum, of course that is not your fault.

Thank you.

UncaYimmy:

Anita, back to the synesthesia claim for a moment. On your website, you say that "the number 2 is orange." Do other numbers have color?

Not usually, and the other numbers vary in what color I perceive them. This is not a common experience I have.

Belz:

5 Is blue, I'm sure. Zero HAS to be black, and I'll be damned if any of them is pink or brown!

None of mine are pink.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Synesthesia is not a paranormal claim, so everyone, leave it at that.

Once again, I feel the need to point out deficiencies in your approach to determining the nature of your claims. We both agree that synesthesia is not paranormal. You seem to believe that it might be a factor in your perceptions. Based on my understanding I disagree. One of the diagnostic criteria is that the images are generic, not specific. Your imagery is very specific, which makes it unlikely that synesthesia is at work.

More importantly we agree that your perceptions can peacefully co-exist with synesthesia. They can also be present without synesthesia. So, in that sense it is a non-factor.

However, here's what you're missing: My theory is that your perceptions are the work of your imagination. You dismiss this idea because you say you know the difference between your imagination and your perceptions.

But what if we can prove that you do not have synesthesia? That would be proof that you, in fact, are unable to differentiate between your imagination and your senses. Proving synesthesia would not prove one way or another that you know the difference. But failing a synesthesia test would put a big dent in your credibility in terms of your self-assessment on imagination.

I cannot stress how important it would be to know that you are unable to differentiate your imagination from your senses.

Designing a test is not difficult. You say that you perceive the number 3 as orange and imply similar sensations with other number-color combinations. This can be tested. Suppose, for example, that you perceive the number 5 as blue. Here's how we would test it.

Those without synesthesia for color-number combinations would see the following image. All of the numbers appear dark gray.


You, by contrast, would see the digits as different colors like in the image below. The number 3 is orange while 5 is blue.


A "normal" person will take a couple of seconds to count the number of times that the number 3 appears. A person with synesthesia will be able to find them much more quickly.

A program could be written to display the all-gray image with the number 3 occurring a random number of times in random locations. Sometimes they would be all gray. Other times they would be two different colors.

The program would time how long it takes for the viewer to enter the number of times that the 3 appears. In a few minutes you could do 100 trials. As a control several of us could volunteer to take the same test.

The results could make it clear whether you have synesthesia or not.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

GeeMack:

I just detect the quantum physics vibrational aspect of the atoms that make the tissue with my sense of feeling which then constructs the images in my mind.

You can say this, in all seriousness? You do understand, don't you, why so many here think you're delusional?

That's my theory, and I'm having this investigation to find out. I don't take it seriously until/unless it's proven correct. Don't worry.

UncaYimmy:

You effectively told someone, "I think you have a potentially serious and fatal heart problem and should see a doctor. And although I've never been wrong, don't take me seriously."

You're absolutely right, I see it now. However, if I may say so, although I feel like I should crawl into a hole, he did confirm that he's had heart pains and his accounts of his heart correlated with mine. This is terrible, regardless of whether I was right or not. It is information that should only come from a doctor. I feel terrible about it and I hope you all beat me up for it because I've done something I thought I would never.

You specifically presented yourself as an expert by saying you have never been wrong. You take yourself so seriously that you took the action of making a recommendation because you believed that person's life to be in danger.

Well, in my defense, I do emphasize that "I could be wrong and I therefore should be assumed to be wrong" and I don't emphasize the "I've never been wrong" part. Well, I really really saw the enlarged heart and I really felt the pain that the heart can have, so it was so hard to refrain from saying something. I realize that it's not for me to say. Even if I were to be correct and by warning someone about the appropriate measures I'd be saving a life, it would still be wrong. Well, again in my defense all I said was that when he sees a doctor next time he should ask that they check his heart. I said that he's 40 now and a doctor would probably think it's a good idea anyway.

Your request to not be taken seriously is in direct contradiction to your recommendation that someone in fact should take you seriously and see a doctor. If you're not serious, don't make any recommendations and certainly don't tell people you've never been wrong.

I really saw and felt the serious and fatal heart condition. What was I to do. This is by the way the only time I have seen a condition as serious as this and recommended a person to take as serious action as to see a doctor.

ETA: On another occasion I met a friend of mine and hadn't seen him for a week. I noticed that something was very different. I detected internal problems with the blood circulation and that the brain was not receiving enough oxygen. I asked him what is different about him this week. Turns out he was now on a different blood pressure medication. I saw it as if the medication fights high blood pressure by working to "prevent blood flow" and that his dose was too high for him. He said that he was feeling weaker and more tired this week since he was on this new medication. What I perceived was that this medicine was going to add up to serious brain damage. I told him that he has to see his doctor again and ask about other alternatives of medicines. He ended up getting a different brand, that the doctor considers equal, but without the side-effects, and both of us no longer detected any side-effects. I am not proud of this, although I might have done something right.

Effectively you told the guy, "I could be wrong, but if I'm not, you could die." That's a pretty serious recommendation.

After I've described what I felt, he confirmed that he's felt heart pain.

So, he goes to the doctor and gets tested. The doc finds nothing. So he gets a second opinion. Still nothing. So he demands exploratory surgery because he figures that since you "saw" this fatty tissue in his heart that the doctors should also take a look. After all, you've never been wrong.

This is a very serious issue you've brought up, and I'm glad you've brought it up. I described what I saw and felt and he confirmed that he's had pain and that heart disease runs in the family. So I recommended that he should see a doctor about his heart, and I said that it's probably a good idea regardless to have a check-up at his age just to make sure and to get some information about what lifestyle to have to take care of the heart.

From your "judge scenario",

She told people not to take her seriously, so obviously there was some doubt in her mind. She was attempting to get tested, which also indicates doubt.

I have doubt because I have to. But past experiences are not what bring me reason to doubt.

She made feeble attempts at verifying her ability with rudimentary chemical detection,

Not so. Chemical perceptions occur much less frequently, and if I were to verify an ability in chemical identification, I for one would not assume that it automatically proves or even gives credibility to medical perceptions.

When given much more scientifically valid protocols to follow, she discontinued testing.

Because I get headache and nausea from forcing myself to perceive tens of times within an hours when normally one perception occurs within weeks.

At the same time the deceased should have listened more strongly to the advice of his doctors.

You have no idea how well I emphasize that people trust doctors first-hand. At least I know this, so it doesn't matter as much what it seems like or what you would expect.

Because you did present yourself as an expert,

I tell people that my information is to be disregarded, however in this case I advised the person to have his heart checked next time he sees a doctor, and he too thought it was a good idea considering his heart pain and family history of heart problems.

you were not qualified to make that call,

And I acknowledge that. And I always tell people that conventional medicine is what counts.

and you should have known you weren't qualified.

I know so. That is why I do this in controlled and careful situations, with friends and in ways where I can ensure that no one comes to harm. I do not offer readings openly. This is the only time I've told someone about a serious health problem.

How could you have avoided liability? Easy. First, you should have said, "There's a little game I like to play where I guess things about a person's health. It's just for fun. I've never actually scientifically studied the accuracy of what I think I see. Do you want to play along?"

I like that disclaimer. It is really good. The "I've been never wrong" part should be disregarded, it serves no benefit for the volunteers or for my experience with the perceptions, you are right.

Then you should have told him what you saw. If he had asked, "should I see a doctor?" you should have replied, "I told you this was for fun and not scientific. I have no opinion either way."

Ouch... But I really saw it, and I felt it... I suppose you're right, even if it were true what I saw, I am not the one to bring this information into people's awareness. But you can't blame me for feeling responsible, it's like letting someone get hurt when you know about it and can stop it. And a friend of all things. It is very difficult.

You should also amend your website to make it extremely clear that you have not had anything verified ever. Don't even tell anyone that you've had people tell you that you were right. The only reason to tell people that is to convince them that what you have is something worthy of testing. The only person who has to believe that is you, so quit trying to convince everyone else. After you have done scientific testing, you can post those results, but not until then.

I both agree and disagree, mostly agree.

And most importantly, don't say things like, "I see organs, tissues, cells, and chemicals." Instead say, "while I have no independent proof, I believe what I am seeing is <whatever>. It could also be imagination. I hope someday to know definitively if my perceptions are real or imaginary."

I agree with that.

Better still, take down your website because there is no value in sharing your perceptions at this point. As you said, people should not take you seriously and treat what you say as nonsense.

Website stays up. And it was specifically requested that I present examples of what I claim to have perceived. So they stay. But I agree that I must become [even] clearer.

Regarding synesthesia, I do associate things with color, shape, and character to a greater extent than other people I know. I guess you're right that I shouldn't "diagnose" myself as having synesthesia, but I do recognize it. As for the number test picture, I do not see colors superimposed with the gray numbers. My associations occur in my mind and not projected. There are synesthetes who project their impressions into the world, and there are those who don't. If I do have synesthesia, I am one who doesn't project.