Vision From Feeling

[Sasha]

Anita, you claim that you perceive health problems in people by just looking at them. Yet the protocol you're trying to set up on the IIG website states (bolding mine):

Anita, whom we call a psychic diagnostician of medical disorders, needs test subjects who are in pain at the time of the test.

http://www.iigwest.com/whatsnew/updates/200812_update.html

I think most of us can look at someone in pain and see that they have a medical problem. Why would a test like this prove anything paranormal, perceptive or in any way special beyond the norm?

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
No. My claim that the perceptions have shown accuracy is based on past experiences. I think the question is a) what will the accuracy be in a test, will it remain as good or will inaccuracy be revealed, and b) if accurate, is the source of the information normal, or paranormal.

Has everything I have said been for naught? I said that it could be delusional or wishful thinking. You say that ESP absolutely cannot be ruled out, yet here you are ruling out what is the most likely explanation. It blows my mind that you can say "no" in response to what it could be.

Delusions: A well proven phenomenon.

Wishful thinking: A well proven phenomenon.

Imagination: A well proven phenomenon.

Your evidence as judged by yourself: Nothing that has been scientifically validated by a third party.

Your evidence as judged by others: Just some random person who has provided zero evidence beyond her word that any of her anecdotes have actually occurred, much less that they have occurred exactly as described. Even if 100% true, they are not worthy of any conclusions or, quite frankly, even testing that there is a real possibility of a Nobel Prize winning advancement in science.

Your claim: If true would make you the first person on this planet with those abilities.

Our experience: You have followed the same pattern as every claimant who has failed a test proving her claim or who has disappeared before taking a test. By contrast you have not followed the pattern of a dispassionate scientist in any way, shape or form.

Your indignation: Unjustified in the opinion of everyone here except you.

All that said, nobody wants you to leave. We want you to take the tests to prove our hypothesis that there's nothing here except for deception, delusions and/or wishful thinking.

You, by contrast, keep trying to convince us that there is a scientific basis for testing your claims. You will never win that battle. Never.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
The perceptions are by definition not hallucinations.

Because they are not confirmed as perceptions. Why can you not understand this? Perceptions implies real external stimuli, sensations/hallucinations does not.
We can only accept this as a language issue for so long before we have to assume it is deliberate.

...
You'd be surprised how it really is. No scientist reveals their ideas until they can do so in a way that ensures that if they've discovered something they get the credit for it. You'd also be surprised how much scientists steal others' ideas. Insider information.

I'd be surprised if you knew the first thing about how scientists actually work.

There already are instruments that generate light structures. You don't know about optics.

Oh this is hilarious. You are so bad at squirming out of direct answers.

I asked you that! I specifically asked you to detail what optical instruments you were talking about.

You then responded

The ones I will work with haven't been built yet. I will build them.

I then mocked you for referring to non-existent and theoretical instruments. And now you immediately return to referring to existing instruments.

So which is it? Which instruments will you use in your testing? Existing ones (please describe them) or imaginary ones of the future?

[quoteBecause I haven't described it in full, here. And I won't. You can read about it when I present it in the way science is presented. [/quote]
Errm sure okay. You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

I've not described things in detail.

No. Really?

And I don't think they would laugh if I did.

I guess we'll never know.

I am sure I could take an extract of the jade plant, prepare different extracts from that that each contain an isolated molecule, and investigate its cancer fighting effects. Unfortunately it is also a toxin to the human body! As I perceive it.

Well it's more words but it doesn't actually answer anything. Just repeats the claim.

The perception of its effects is stronger than the perception of the molecule that would be translateable to chemistry drawings. If anyone saw an actual molecule they'd find it very hard to figure out how to translate it into the chemical elements and chemical bonds.

Yes but you aren't seeing it are you. Your claim invloves 'vibrational information' that can show this information.
Except when it can't.

They were pictures on the internet. I should have been more clear on that.

Oh so it is a yet further new claim. You can feel the sensation of the effect a substance from a scanning electron miscroscope.
Well that should be even easier to test right here on the forum - but of course it wont be.

In order to make a paranormal claim or to begin a paranormal investigation, the claimant is not required to have a math or science background, or to be able to explain their claim scientifically. I do hope you realize that.

I realise that perfectly well.
You are the one who wanted to try and explain it all scientifically, and then fell down rather badly when you couldn't.

 

[Locknar]

You, by contrast, keep trying to convince us that there is a scientific basis for testing your claims. You will never win that battle. Never.

Nicly said. I'll add:

You (VFF) continue trying to convince us you are proceeding in a scientific manner.

Rather, you are proceeding in exactly the way someone who is layman thinks scientists conduct research. You consistently show total disregard for the scientific method, jump to false conclusions, testing without controls or premise, no documentation, and quite frankly the list just goes on and on.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The claim I am investigating is medical perceptions from live people. When it is insisted that I test the other aspects of the perceptions, that occur much less frequently, that are not of the type that I would push to have tested in the first place, and when tests conclude (with the Lactobacillus test) that a test means I have to force myself and get a serious headache and nausea, and other reasons, I have every reason to avoid these tests and to focus on my main claim.

You were willing to take the tests in the first place. You said, "Chemical identification would be easier for test purposes, but to make it easier on my ability I would prefer the official test to test it on what it is the strongest at. I am however interested in testing it on chemical identification as well and will post the results here as soon as that is done."

In fact you discussed chemical identification a number of times including references to tests in your chemistry lab at school. At no time did you mention an adverse health effects. It wasn't until you actually took the test that you mentioned that you become drained, but you explained it as "typical" after the fact, not before. You did not mention nausea at all after the first test.

Even then you said,"I will have additional tests later on and will repeat the cereal test as well." The nausea and claims of being too physically to perform only came after you began having less accurate results in subsequent tests.

This is another indicator of possible subconscious self deception, which is a well documented phenomenon. When faced with failure, your mind may have protected itself by making you ill. Or simply the stress of realizing possible failure made you sick - not unusual at all.

The problem is that you were told the results after each trial rather than at the end (quite unscientific). Thus as you made more mistakes, you felt ill. Did feeling ill cause more mistakes or did making more mistakes cause you to feel ill? Your poorly constructed test prevents us from knowing the answer.

The thing is, you could work around this problem very easily. Statistically there is no difference between making five runs of 20 identifications or 20 runs of five identifications. You could space them apart if you wanted. Just making one short run each morning and evening for a week could give you enough results to be analyzed.

You told me you wanted to be the next Madame Curie. Great research involves sacrifice.

 

[Old man]

Just checking in here, no time for another wall o' text post.

But, I couldn't let this pass -

You'd be surprised how it really is. No scientist reveals their ideas until they can do so in a way that ensures that if they've discovered something they get the credit for it. You'd also be surprised how much scientists steal others' ideas. Insider information.

No, Anita, YOU would be "surprised how it really is".

Ever hear of a (REAL) scientist by the name of John Sanford? He and I spent a number of hours standing around in the hall, discussing this -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_gun

I also know for a FACT that he freely sought the help and advise of a number of people.

I've worked for a major research institution (Cornell, NYSAES) for over thirty years. Researchers DO collaborate, and ask for (and receive) advise and criticism all of the time!

 

[GeeMack]

It is only now that I've begun investigating the medical perceptions, but in a rational way.

No. No, you're not investigating anything in a rational way. There's nothing rational at all about it, not when you say things like this...

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.

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.

All this pretense of yours about investigating and testing, all your apparent belief that this is some kind of sciency stuff, it all goes out the window if you're simply not sane, doesn't it? You seem quick to ignore other people's advice to get yourself checked out, but your mental health is a relevant issue. So here's an angle... Go to your school's counseling office. Get an appointment with a qualified mental health professional. Sit down and have a nice long talk with him/her, maybe several nice long talks. Find out what that person thinks about your ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. Obviously nobody is qualified to make such an assessment here on an Internet forum, but there are people in real life who can help you sort it out. And of course nobody here can make you go get a professional assessment, but if you were a close friend or loved one, I'd insist on it.

Then if you get a clean bill of health, if you find out that your head is actually screwed on straight, really straight, then settle yourself down, focus, develop a systematic approach to testing your supposed abilities, and go about it in a truly scientific way. You've made a couple hundred postings here so far. You've been given a whole lot of good advice about how to go about setting up tests, but you're deliberately avoiding doing it. You've been offered perfectly valid criticism, and rather than accept it, you get defensive. If there is anything at all to your claim of possessing these magical powers, you're never going to find out if you stay all scattered and flighty like you've been here so far.

 

[Hokulele]

I realize that I too have been posting irrelevant topics in this thread, and I should know better than to post them in a skeptics Forum and not expect skeptics to do to it what they do.

Then why did you do so?

If you all excuse me, I have a study to set up. I have skeptics to contact, people to call, papers to print, random numbers to generate, envelopes to buy, and arrangements to make.

When you come back with your results, please make sure that you document the protocols involved extensively. As UncaYimmy just pointed out, make your claims and statements at the time of the study, not later in the form of excuses.

 

[stanfr]

Wow, 20 new posts since my last 2 hours ago. At this rate, should hit about 200 pages for this thread by next month, and i gaurantee nothing will have been accomplished. Which makes me wonder, who is really the "delusional" or "mentally ill" person here? Attention feeds delusion. That's the last time i'll say that, since im done with this silly train wreck, and unlike others who have made that promise, if i break mine please call me on it and i will send you $100 via paypal. That should keep me honest

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Anecdotally, I believe I have experience of the perception of having predicted this. I must conduct a study into investigating a method to test this belief, or else we must conclude that everyone has ESP.

Or something. Just ignore me.

 

[desertgal]

Once again, I declare myself the arbiter of precise language. I am qualified because I applied for and received a poetic license.

What Anita has described for her medical perceptions is not consistent with hallucinations in that she has never claimed to see these images in "objective external space." What she describes is her imagination. Her belief that she is actually reconstructing accurate images could be called delusional or simply wishful thinking.

However, some of what Anita has described outside of this thread can be described as hallucinations. In several of her ghost stories she makes it clear that what she sees is superimposed on to the real world and not of this world, so to speak. That sounds like imagination, but it might be argued as being hallucinatory.

She does say, however, that she can hear ghosts and even carry on conversations with them. That sounds like a hallucination to me. Or just a fanciful imagination and story telling on her part.

And we all know she obviously feels compelled to share these stories and anecdotes.

Thank you, Jim, for that clarification.

I should also sign off with the very reluctant fact that I have successfully battled with schizotypal disorder for nearly 30 years. While I should never have offered that here as the amateur diagnosis it was, or even suggested it in the offhand way that I did, I do see similarities between what Anita has presented here, and my own personal knowledge of the disorder. Seven characteristics, in fact. That is not intended as a diagnosis, just an observation. While I did run out of patience with Anita, and resorted to caustic replies, my repeated attempts to stress to her that she appears to be experiencing delusions, hallucinations, and self deception were based on concern about those similarities I noted. I apologize to all of you for, perhaps, taking my insistence too far.

Again, I think she needs professional help. Perhaps testing this ability and having it proven to her that her ability is based on delusion will be a step in that direction. I hope so, because, at this point, if she continues in the manner that she has presented here, and there is an existing personality disorder, she can only descend further into it. As well, if she continues with these medical diagnoses, someone is going to get hurt by it.

In any case, I wish her luck. Thank you all for your patience with my impatience.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I should also sign off with the very reluctant fact that I have successfully battled with schizotypal disorder for nearly 30 years. While I should never have offered that here as the amateur diagnosis it was, or even suggested it in the offhand way that I did, I do see similarities between what Anita has presented here, and my own personal knowledge of the disorder.

I disagree with your belief that you shouldn't have brought it up. I think it was an excellent point to make. And your experience from the "inside" so to speak should make anyone sit up and take notice. It's one thing for an amateur like myself to get all technical about strict definitions. It's quite another for someone to bring a voice of experience, even if it's not from a doctor's perspective.

And in the words of Anita herself (sorta):

That is why I was expressing concern that some of the Forum members were convinced that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder. We can say that it is unlikely that I have a delusional or schizotypal disorder, or that we do not expect me to have a delusional or schizotypal disorder, but to say that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder did not seem right with me. That's what this is about. Don't try to turn this into making it sound like I'm a bad scientist. I was just saying that we really don't know that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder. And I was right about that.

Check out this article - in my mind it shows that your assessment is not without foundation.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/psychosis-delusions-personality-disorders.html

In my mind it is not off the table. There are more people who have those types of disorders than have synesthesia, yet she was willing to assume has it without any testing or even in-depth research. Seriously claiming to have an ability that no other person on earth has, is well, let's just say it's odd.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

What about the moderated thread? Should I ask the moderators to close it or will you continue to participate?

Let's keep that thread and I will answer in it when I find the time. Please allow that I prioritate this thread and the upcoming study, and I will post there when time allows.

Sideroxylon:

I guess I must have been reading too much into statements you have been making like the one I replied to: "Experience has shown that they are accurate perceptions."

The perceptions have appeared to be accurate. That does not exclude the possibility that they were not accurate, for instance if a person was lying about the correlation they've stated between my perceptions and their health. Nor does it exclude the possibility that the origin of the accurate perceptions was something other than paranormal. All I've concluded from the nature of the experiences I've had, is that they compel me toward a study and a test in order to find out more.

Ashles:

Oh dear, back to this in complete contradiction of the previous pretense to be open minded as to whether the sensations were as a result of stimuli or not. (...) Anita, it is, for reference - "events in the environment" or "a detectable change in the internal or external environment" (in this instance internal refers to real changes inside your own body).

Is not visual perception of a person a stimulus?

Sasha:

I think most of us can look at someone in pain and see that they have a medical problem. Why would a test like this prove anything paranormal, perceptive or in any way special beyond the norm?

The December update on the IIG page is outdated. The protocol in question was already sent to me several weeks ago and I replied to it in full within the next day, in which I declared that pain need not be occurring in the volunteers. You're right about this concern though, thank you for bringing it up. Even though some of you skeptics are going to be in utter disbelief and I will be hearing about it soon, I have every interest in proper test design. What I had in mind by the way was pain that is not considered detectable by ordinary senses, but, never mind. If the upcoming study were to reveal that I can "do my thing" with the volunteer behind a screen, then current pain can once again be considered.

UncaYimmy:

Delusions: A well proven phenomenon.

Wishful thinking: A well proven phenomenon.

Imagination: A well proven phenomenon.

Your evidence as judged by yourself: Nothing that has been scientifically validated by a third party.

Proven phenomena, but have they been proven to apply to me?

Your evidence as judged by others: Just some random person who has provided zero evidence beyond her word that any of her anecdotes have actually occurred, much less that they have occurred exactly as described. Even if 100% true, they are not worthy of any conclusions or, quite frankly, even testing that there is a real possibility of a Nobel Prize winning advancement in science.

I do realize that my experiences are not evidence to others, nor have I intended to present them as evidence to others. What I've said is that they are compelling enough for someone like me who experienced them and that all I conclude based on them is to proceed toward a study and a test. They have not proven to me that I'd have ESP. Experiences have failed to falsify this paranormal investigation, and that is all.

Your claim: If true would make you the first person on this planet with those abilities who bothered to go through this ordeal.

Red mine.

Our experience: You have followed the same pattern as every claimant who has failed a test proving her claim or who has disappeared before taking a test.

Failed a test of my main claim of identifying medical information in people by seeing them? Nah. Disappeared before taking a test? I'm still here.

Your indignation: Unjustified in the opinion of everyone here except you.

Although I realize that my experiences are mine alone and that they are not backed up by formal evidence, they are what compel me. I can not disregard my experiences of accurate perceptions in which I do not know what cold reading could have been available, just because none of you are in position to consider it. As I've said, I begin from my position, and you all begin from your position, and both claimant and skeptics will arrive at the same position but from different starting points, and be on the same position in which a test takes place.

All that said, nobody wants you to leave. We want you to take the tests to prove our hypothesis that there's nothing here except for deception, delusions and/or wishful thinking.

I'm not going anywhere. I will work with this investigation until a conclusion has been reached. Ah, since you have a hypothesis, don't forget about the null hypothesis. I just want openness that's all.

You, by contrast, keep trying to convince us that there is a scientific basis for testing your claims. You will never win that battle. Never.

Of course I can't convince any of you of this, since my anecdotes are not formal evidence. All I am saying, is that I am convinced of the fact that experiences compel me toward a test. I have failed to falsify my paranormal claim on my own and that is why I now take the help of skeptics, scientists, and a scientific test. And that is the right thing to do.

Ashles:

You are the one who wanted to try and explain it all scientifically, and then fell down rather badly when you couldn't.

chose not to

Locknar:

Rather, you are proceeding in exactly the way someone who is layman thinks scientists conduct research. You consistently show total disregard for the scientific method, jump to false conclusions, testing without controls or premise, no documentation, and quite frankly the list just goes on and on.

Give me one example of when I disregarded the use of the scientific method in my investigation of my main claim of medical diagnose from live persons (ie. not photos or video). Don't just point out my shortcomings, teach me instead. When did I jump to false conclusions? (I could present a long list of where you skeptics jumped to false conclusions, but let's just leave it at that. Anyone who loves this thread can read about it.) I will not be testing without controls on the formal tests. If you are referring to the study, it is a study, not a test. I did attempt to document the experiences in the way that I was instructed to. The study will present some well documented examples. And what else is on the list? Explain it to me, I do listen and read everything you all write. I'm here to learn.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Just making my monthly or thereabouts drive-by to see if this nonsense is getting anywhere.

Nope.


There's a surprise.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

In fact you discussed chemical identification a number of times including references to tests in your chemistry lab at school.

I have not had such tests at school. I've had experiences, that's all.

At no time did you mention an adverse health effects. It wasn't until you actually took the test that you mentioned that you become drained, but you explained it as "typical" after the fact, not before. You did not mention nausea at all after the first test.

And I regret that I didn't state it earlier. At least I know that I am not making it up so that I can live with myself.

Even then you said,"I will have additional tests later on and will repeat the cereal test as well." The nausea and claims of being too physically to perform only came after you began having less accurate results in subsequent tests.

Seems like it possibly, but is not so. I am still considering having additional tests, but I have to work out a way to make maybe five trials at a time and then rest a few days in between, and then to add the series of trials together. The headache and nausea comes from forcing myself to make tens of perceptions within a few hours, when normally I only have one every few weeks or so. I regret the inconvenience but that's how it is.

This is another indicator of possible subconscious self deception, which is a well documented phenomenon. When faced with failure, your mind may have protected itself by making you ill. Or simply the stress of realizing possible failure made you sick - not unusual at all.

Then how come headache and nausea appear first, and my stamina to perform is reduced after? Hm.

The problem is that you were told the results after each trial rather than at the end (quite unscientific). Thus as you made more mistakes, you felt ill. Did feeling ill cause more mistakes or did making more mistakes cause you to feel ill? Your poorly constructed test prevents us from knowing the answer.

From what I recall I was doing pretty good on those cereal tests. Headache and nausea appeared first, reduced ability to force perceptions appeared after.

The thing is, you could work around this problem very easily. Statistically there is no difference between making five runs of 20 identifications or 20 runs of five identifications. You could space them apart if you wanted. Just making one short run each morning and evening for a week could give you enough results to be analyzed.

That's right. I will look into it, really I will. But for now my main priority is the main claim.

Old man:

Researchers DO collaborate, and ask for (and receive) advise and criticism all of the time!

Yes and I will do that in a professional environment. Not here.

 

[nathan]

nathan:
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.

That you need a person in front of you to have perceptions of their organs (or whatever), is not evidence that the perceptions of their organs (or whatever) is not a hallucination.

On your own, you cannot prove you are not having hallucinations.

I've known someone who had auditory hallucinations, it was utterly impossible to convince them that they were hallucinating.

 

[Locknar]

Give me one example of when I disregarded the use of the scientific method in my investigation of my main claim of medical diagnose from live persons (ie. not photos or video).

As you wish; how is that written log/diary comming along?

When did I jump to false conclusions?

Again, as you wish;

I have synesthesia.

qed

I did attempt to document the experiences in the way that I was instructed to.

Who instructed you to document your experiences, via a blog, with no supporting/corroborating facts?

Shirley you can't be serious.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

GeeMack:

Find out what that person thinks about your ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

I have experienced correlation between my medical perceptions and actual health conditions. Not because I think so. Not because I believe so. Not because I want it to be so. But because it's been so. Therefore I want tests that enable cold reading to be ruled out. Even if most likely I do not have ESP, even if I were doing an involuntary cold reading I will personally proceed with studying that very thing because I think it is very interesting how I can look at a person's neck and taste the flavors of ice-cream they eat, see the cartilagenous scar tissue after a heart bypass surgery under clothes, and detect vasectomy! To me this is fascinating regardless!

I experience the medical perceptions as impressions and not in the same way as I do what I see with my eyes for instance. I have a clear distinction between these subjective perceptions and my objective perceptions. I am fully aware of the fact that others don't perceive these things. Yet I wonder about their apparent accuracy and am conducting a study to investigate the actual accuracy and source of the information. I don't think a councellor would object to my applying of scientific interest to investigate an explanation to an unusual experience.

Obviously nobody is qualified to make such an assessment here on an Internet forum, but there are people in real life who can help you sort it out. And of course nobody here can make you go get a professional assessment, but if you were a close friend or loved one, I'd insist on it.

Thanks Hon for caring, but really, the perceptions in themselves are not of concern. They do not interfere with my life, I do not take them seriously, and I am investigating their apparent accuracy and am fully open to falsify a paranormal claim.

You've been given a whole lot of good advice about how to go about setting up tests, but you're deliberately avoiding doing it.

And I take that advice. I am not avoiding a test. Impatience, that's all.

You've been offered perfectly valid criticism, and rather than accept it, you get defensive.

I defend myself when incorrect conclusions with negative connotations are made about me.

If there is anything at all to your claim of possessing these magical powers, you're never going to find out if you stay all scattered and flighty like you've been here so far.

This is because I keep responding to y'alls posts. If you all stopped posting irrelevant topics about whether I'm from Sweden or not and what my family thinks about my perceptions and whether I'm in fact studying two degrees at the same time, you'd see more of what I can do. I'd get a chance to speak.

UncaYimmy:

That is why I was expressing concern that some of the Forum members were convinced that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder. We can say that it is unlikely that I have a delusional or schizotypal disorder, or that we do not expect me to have a delusional or schizotypal disorder, but to say that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder did not seem right with me. That's what this is about. Don't try to turn this into making it sound like I'm a bad scientist. I was just saying that we really don't know that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder. And I was right about that.

This is an improper way of twisting my words by the way. And we've already established that I do not have schizotypal disorder by virtue of the little checklist that was posted earlier. When I look at people I see images in my mind of organs and tissue and perceive health information. There has appeared to be good accuracy between my perceptions and actual health information. The fact that I perceive impressions in my mind of tissue by means of association does not indicate mental health concerns. The fact that I am a victim of experiencing accuracy between perceptions and facts also does not indicate mental health concerns. All that I have concluded and rightfully done so is to proceed toward a test to see if I can falsify the paranormal claim. I really don't see the problem here. Could be that I discover that I have an excellent ability of cold reading that I was not aware of, could be that it picks up very minute signals and processes the information in a most impressive way, and I would be thrilled to discover even that! With regard to my medical perceptions, and my conclusion to proceed with a scientific test, I consider neither to be any indication of concern.

 

[Jeff Corey]

So much crap to reply to, so little time. "Quantum vibrations" , failing, then being sick on tests, and a 4.0 average. I know someone who teaches down there and maybe she could check that out.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Regarding the link that was provided by UncaYimmy about psychosis, http://www.buzzle.com/articles/psychosis-delusions-personality-disorders.html, I've read it carefully and here is my response (if anyone is curious):

Psychotics are fully aware of events and people "out there". They cannot, however separate data and experiences originating in the outside world from information generated by internal mental processes. They confuse the external universe with their inner emotions, cognitions, preconceptions, fears, expectations, and representations.

I most definitely can separate between the unusual perceptions and those that result from ordinary senses. I have no confusion between myself and the external universe. The reason I initiated this paranormal investigation is because I've experienced correlation between the perceptions and with facts, not because of my interpretation of correlation, but by impersonal confirmation. And all that concludes is to have a test.

Similarly, patients suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder and, to a lesser extent, Antisocial and Histrionic Personality Disorders fail to grasp others as full-fledged entities. They regard even their nearest and dearest as cardboard cut-outs, two-dimensional representations (introjects), or symbols. They treat them as instruments of gratification, functional automata, or extensions of themselves.

I definitely grasp others as full-fledged entities. This does not apply to me.

Consequently, both psychotics and the personality disordered have a distorted view of reality and are not rational. No amount of objective evidence can cause them to doubt or reject their hypotheses and convictions. Full-fledged psychosis involves complex and ever more bizarre delusions and the unwillingness to confront and consider contrary data and information (preoccupation with the subjective rather than the objective). Thought becomes utterly disorganized and fantastic.

I am very rational. I just have unusual experiences, but the experiences do not come about by choice, it is not as if I've "rationalized myself into allowing them to occur". I rationally decide to have a scientific test to establish the objective truth behind my interestingly accurate perceptions. I love objective evidence, I am a scientist science student. There is nothing I enjoy more than reading about some concept of physics that defies all everyday experience and to take it as truth simply because it is proven with objective scientific verification and is agreed to by the scientific community, even if I can't visualize it right away. This paragraph didn't apply to me.

The DSM-IV-TR defines psychosis as "restricted to delusions or prominent hallucinations, with the hallucinations occurring in the absence of insight into their pathological nature".

I experience perceptions, impressions, of tissue, and do not consider the perceptions to be pathological. Most people experience periods of having random strange thoughts that they can not stop or control and I don't even have that.

A delusion is "a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary".

Aha! I am not delusional! So stop it, everyone! There is no belief behind my perceptions, they are images and impressions, that's all, and I do not automatically place belief into them. They are also not firmly sustained, I am open to finding out that they'd not always be accurate. And as a scientist science student I would never find it in me to reject incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence.

A hallucination is a "sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality of a true perception but that occurs without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ".

Aha! Yet again from a third definition my perceptions are not hallucinations! My perceptions do not come with a compelling sense of reality of a true perception! But they do however occur without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ.

Delusion is, therefore, a belief, idea, or conviction firmly held despite abundant information to the contrary. The partial or complete loss of reality test is the first indication of a psychotic state or episode. (...) There are many types of delusions:

My belief is to proceed toward a scientific test to find out what the actual accuracy is and what the actual origin of the information is. There has been no information contrary to this belief.

I. Paranoid
The belief that one is being controlled or persecuted by stealth powers and conspiracies. This is common in the Paranoid, Antisocial, Narcissistic, Borderline, Avoidant, and Dependent Personality Disorders.

Not me.

2. Grandiose-magical
The conviction that one is important, omnipotent, possessed of occult powers, or a historic figure. Narcissists invariably harbor such delusions.
Hm, yes. I feel important because I aspire to make progress within the field of medical technology, meanwhile I think everyone is important in their own way, and this is just what give meaning to my own existence. Omnipotent I am not, I've got shortcomings. Well, experience suggests that I might have some powers, but tests will establish whether I am entitled to take it as a conviction.

3. Referential (ideas of reference)
The belief that external, objective events carry hidden or coded messages or that one is the subject of discussion, derision, or opprobrium, even by total strangers. This is common in the Avoidant, Schizoid, Schizotypal, Narcissistic, and Borderline Personality Disorders.

Not me.

Hallucinations are false perceptions based on false sensa (sensory input) not triggered by any external event or entity. The patient is usually not psychotic - he is aware that he what he sees, smells, feels, or hears is not there. Still, some psychotic states are accompanied by hallucinations.

The perceptions are triggered by external events or entities. The perceptions are what I automatically associate to when exposed to external things.

There are a few classes of hallucinations:
Auditory - The false perception of voices and sounds (such as buzzing, humming, radio transmissions, whispering, motor noises, and so on).

Not me.

Gustatory - The false perception of tastes

I can't conclude whether they are false. For instance when I look at a person's neck and can taste what they are eating and it is in fact the taste of what they are eating. I don't know about this one.

Olfactory - The false perception of smells and scents (e.g., burning flesh, candles)

Not me. Except when I perceive that the human stomach smells like hydrochloric acid sometimes, but for all we know that would be a true perception or an association. Just like when people look at food and can almost "taste it", except that this comes from an image perceived in the mind and not perceived with eyesight.

Somatic - The false perception of processes and events that are happening inside the body or to the body (e.g., piercing objects, electricity running through one's extremities). Usually supported by an appropriate and relevant delusional content.

Not me.

Tactile - The false sensation of being touched, or crawled upon or that events and processes are taking place under one's skin. Usually supported by an appropriate and relevant delusional content.

No! Scary!

Visual - The false perception of objects, people, or events in broad daylight or in an illuminated environment with eyes wide open.

Only ghosts, except we don't know that they are false, and everytime I see them other people see them too. They manifest like white veils that have a partial human form. Often I say nothing, and wait for friends to say it first. This is the only unusual thing that I actually see with my eyes and in the physical world itself, but, others see it too. All other unusual things occur in my mind's awareness and not seen/projected around me.

Hypnagogic and Hypnopompic - Images and trains of events experienced while falling asleep or when waking up. Not hallucinations in the strict sense of the word.

Not me.

What can we conclude? Do we have a psychologist or psychiatrist among us?