Vision From Feeling

[Ashles]

So if Anita gets readings for roughly one in 20 people, would a sample of 60 people give enough to form any kind of conclusions?

Surely with the level of accuracy displayed for each time the ability is active, even three people analysed would give a reasonably large amount of data to work with?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy
Anita is one of the people I believe I can influence. I honestly believe there's a chance she'll see the light and learn to address her claims critically. If she does, I'm sure it will expand outwards to her circle of friends. Based on her personality I'm sure she will enjoy challenging others the same way we have done her. What a great victory for critical thinking.
Insult! I am here doing all I can to critically analyze my medical perceptions, and I believe that most of the criticism against how I approach this is based on impatience. I know there is more I should and could do but it is a lot of work and takes time! I think I am doing well in my investigation. And besides I have shown to be much more objective and science-minded many times than many of you skeptics.

You're 26 and claim to have had this ability all your life. You started your website 18 months ago. You came here over a month ago claiming that your ability "seems to be either true extrasensory perception or the case of something similar to synesthesia..."

And yet you don't have even just one properly constructed test under your belt. To make it worse, you resist the testing protocols we have suggested.

If you feel insulted, change your behavior.

 

[Old man]

You're 26 and claim to have had this ability all your life. You started your website 18 months ago. You came here over a month ago claiming that your ability "seems to be either true extrasensory perception or the case of something similar to synesthesia..."

And yet you don't have even just one properly constructed test under your belt...

...Despite the fact that you're implying that your ability is likely to be manifested multiple times every day.

And you want us to believe that you can't seem to define your 'power' better than you have so far?

 

[desertgal]

You know, I just noticed this:

I am here to objectively discuss the possibility of having an ESP ability. I have not concluded one way or the other.

I am here to discuss a test whose objective is to find out either that it is the case of ESP or that it is not the case of ESP.

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, the home page of http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/ reads:

"This webpage is about my extrasensory perception that allows me to know about the health condition of people."

Kinda contradicting yourself there, ain't ya?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Kinda contradicting yourself there, ain't ya?

Don't forget her first post here:

I am in the process of arranging with the IIG in Hollywood to test what seems to be either true extrasensory perception or the case of something similar to synesthesia which leads me to obtain accurate information that is normally out of reach of ordinary perception.

Her abilities were a foregone conclusion - it was just an either/or test of ESP or something like synesthesia. Of course, she later lumped herself in the ESP category when she wrote, "Unlike many who are under the impression that they have a psychic ability..."

If there's any doubt her psychic notions, she also wrote, "I believe that there are elements of the paranormal that can be brought into science once properly understood and established."

The biggest problem is summed here in one of her earliest posts where say says, " have no personal preference for having either synesthesia or actual verifiable extrasensory perception."

She's utterly convinced what she is doing is real. She's just wondering whether it's ESP or synesthesia.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Anita,

I would like you to clarify a couple of things. Forgive me for not quoting the exact post, but they are all from the "reply to Page 16" -style posts you have made recently.

On your ability and its prevalance: You suggest that, perhaps, 1 in 20 people "ping your radar" with a health issue. (I note that you said that may not be an accurate fraction, thank you for noting that.) Do you know what your percentage is for people who do have health issues? That is, when you go to see a doctor (or to the health clinic that undoubtedly is at/near your college for the students), about what fraction of the people in the waiting room do you see something from? I am not asking you to try to verify any reading, here, just if you do a walk-through of the lobby, how many do you see something in?

You indicated in one of those lengthy posts that you know you have synesthesia, which may or may not be related to your medical perceptions. What form of synesthesia do you have? This is an important piece of information in regards your claim.

I also wish to raise an issue that I think you haven't quite heard, though the point has been brought up several times. (I think this may be a language issue, however, since English is not your native tongue? BTW, for a non-native, your English is remarkably good, congratulations on that. It's a difficult language even for natives!) Have you thought about the possibility that you do not receive perceptions at all? That is, that what you do is have 'blips' of imagination that are not based upon what you are looking at, except very indirectly? All of your comments seem to pointed to the two options, A) It is ESP-based medical percpetion, or B) It is non-ESP medical perception. These are not the two only options.

I don't want you to hear this as a slam, or accusing you of anything, because I have had experiences in my life that seemed to be real, but were not. What if, for instance, you did a test and (unbeknownst to you) there was an experienced actor in the group?--and you 'read' in him certain medical issues that he did not have, but was showing subtle symptoms of? The most reasonable conclusion from such a result would be that you are performing some kind of mental modelling based upon subtle behavioral information...which means that your 'vision' of the tissues involved, etc. was purely created by your imagination. You would have NO ability to see into tissues or read vibrations for their information. Is that possibility one you are willing--and able--to allow for?

Take a few minutes to think about that, it's a tough concept. "Losing" my ability was quite disappointing and even painful, and took me a long time to process. I had to accept it, because--as a science student (I went to Harvey Mudd)--I knew the test was well-designed. I knew what it implied; and I knew that the test had "felt" just as usual. But the results clearly showed that I was unconsciously reacting to other people, not the target.

The answer-set of A = ESP reading, B = Non-ESP reading is incomplete. You need to allow for C = No reading, just projection. So far, I have not seen you looking at that as a possibility.

Congrats on surviving finals, and either a safe journey home for Christmas, or a fine holiday here in the States. Regards, Miss Kitt

ETA -- Unca Yimmy, will you please stop reading my mind and doing a shorter, pithier post while I'm composing mine? Jeez, man, you make me look bad!!

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 18:

Miss Kitt:

Do you "see people's insides" all the time, or not? Is it a daily occurance? When you find a person you can "read", can you read them all the time, or only on some occasions?

Serious health problems are highlighted and catch my attention on their own no matter what I am doing, and are at times so clear that they are hard to ignore. When it comes to average information, such as simply seeing what the insides look like, or information that is not associated with a problem, whether I see them depends on where my attention is. If I am busy with other things I am less likely to notice such images, just like when you are busy and there is music playing in the background, you might not be aware of the sound at all. When I am more relaxed and attention is not on other things, I tend to perceive more of the medical images. But yes it is a daily occurrence. Every person is equally available to be read, there is no one who is harder to form images from than others, however people differ in how much "interesting" information they carry around. I can read a person all the time except if I become very tired which is when most abilities of any kind would be harder to do. I can make the conscious effort to form the images at any time. And, although you did not ask this specificly, I also see inside myself and I do this very often to check on things.

The earlier stages of this thread seemed to imply that it was something that was common in her life. But the number of amendments, adjustments, and requests for "byes" leads me to now question how common this experience actually is in her life.

It is common in my life, but only rarely do I choose to do a head-to-toe reading of a person. I think the problem you point to comes from the fact that I haven't had enough experience with the perceptions where I have been able to check for accuracy, which gives the appearance that I'd be less experienced than I in fact am. Which is also why I can not for instance state whether I can detect an appendectomy or not. I do not have the experience of checking accuracy as much as I have experienced perceptions.

If it is some form of physical perception, then it should work most of the time. (Most of us have perceptual difficulties when we are tired, overstressed, in a distracting environment, etc.) If only certain people produce a 'signal' she can 'read', then those people would, one expects, always be readable.

And yes it works most of the time. All people produce signals that I can read. It is then a matter of whether the person has any interesting information to note on. And yes once I've read a person once I always can. I have never come across a person who I wasn't able to read.

One of the alternative mechanisms hypothesized for her visual/mental image events is synesthesia--but for it to be synesthesia, it needs to be involuntary, consistent, and lifelong. That is, if to you a trumpet's note is a blue sound, then it always is and can't be made not-blue. Most synesthetes have learned to suppress the imagery somewhat when they want to focus on something else, but it's always there, and when not actively suppressed, always the same. Synesthesia is neuralogic in nature, so it's not a learned association...I just wrote a (short) paper on this last quarter, so I'm pretty secure on my research here.

Yes, and some of what I perceive is consistent with synesthesia.

Curiouser and curiouser, but getting further than ever from a test, I suspect...

I apologize for all this delay in progress in my investigation. I had been under the assumption that the testing organizations would do most of the work in arranging the tests, but from Thursday's lecture with Dr. Eric Carlson I learned that it is I as the claimant who must do most of the work and be the principal investigator into my own claim. I am now taking more initiative, and I will work as fast as I can and not give up until there is a definite test result that concludes no ESP ability, ESP ability, or beyond doubt has established that this is an untestable claim.

Anna Karenina:

And I already conceded to someone else that I was mistaken about the American system, I didn't realise it was so different to the Australian one, where you can't do two concurrent BSci (we have two majors within the one degree instead).

Phew. I almost went to Australia for my Bachelors.

I don't think Anita is a scam artist, I think she genuinely believes her abilities are real.

Actually I do not conclude whether I have ESP or not until a test suggests which is the case. I believe my perceptions are real perceptions, but I do not conclude that the perceptions are images formed from actual information in the real world until proven so, regardless of what I would come to believe from my perspective. I am remaining open-minded, and I suggest you skeptics here do the same.

Diogenes:

Based on what Anita claims her powers are, why should she have any discussion with her subjects, at all ?

There will be no discussion between me and the subjects up ahead.

Let me guess.. Her answer would be something like:

" I don't really understand how it works, but perhaps in hearing their voices, it helps me fine tune my receiving mechanism to the transdimensional frequencies, that enable me to see the X-ray like images . "

No, no discussion between me and the subjects is ever part of forming the conclusions I make about their health information, and any speaking can be excluded from further experiences with the medical perceptions.

I definitely do not use their voices to conclude anything. The fact that you suggest this yet again shows how you skeptics make incorrect conclusions. And besides my images are far beyond the meager quality of X-ray imaging.

 

[Uncayimmy]

ETA -- Unca Yimmy, will you please stop reading my mind and doing a shorter, pithier post while I'm composing mine? Jeez, man, you make me look bad!!

I don't know if I was reading your mind or if you were transmitting the information into my head. I have no personal preference either way. I'm just here to find out which it is.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I had been under the assumption that the testing organizations would do most of the work in arranging the tests, but from Thursday's lecture with Dr. Eric Carlson I learned that it is I as the claimant who must do most of the work and be the principal investigator into my own claim.

Did I not say this to you several times?

I am now taking more initiative, and I will work as fast as I can and not give up until there is a definite test result that concludes no ESP ability, ESP ability, or beyond doubt has established that this is an untestable claim.

This is where everyone here has been trying to help you. We have lots of solid advice to give you.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 19:

desertgal:

Huh? She said several times, in this thread, that most people in the town where she grew up, as well as her family, were aware of this alleged ability, and relatively unimpressed by it. She has also said, several times, that, to her, this alleged ability is as normal and mundane as seeing with our eyes is to you and I.

What she says in this letter seems to be contradictory.

Honey bring me the quote where I say that most people in the town where I grew up were aware of the alleged ability, because this is untrue and I would need to go back and change the statement. My closest family are aware of the ability to some extent, yes. And yes they are relatively unimpressed by it. So what? And yes it is normal and mundane to me and is part of my average perception. We have already attacked me for several pages in this thread because of the way I feel about my perceptions. Let's not go through that again. I suggest you go back to the appropriate pages and read it again to get what ever sustenance you look for in such a discussion, because I will not participate in such a discussion all over again. It takes up thread-space. What I said in the letter to the local skeptics group is not contradictory with my previous statements. I had never been in a room full of strangers before where I had been able to be fully open about the ability with everyone. So what I said in the letter to Jim was true.

skeen:

Why can't she just do what she claims she has been doing all along? If she can do what she says she can do, she could very easily have convinced a hell of a lot of the skeptics at that group, by merely telling them what she sees.

I wish I could have demonstrated the perceptions at that meeting but there was never the opportunity to do so. And it was already 10 PM I think when we finished the lecture, and everybody was leaving and I was tired. There will be opportunity eventually, I promise.

At least give people something. We haven't even had an informal presentation of these alleged abilities. It's all the same, isn't it? These people.

Bring me a room full of people who volunteer and it will be done at once.

She has said time and time again that she actually sees the muscle tissue, like an X-ray. If she can do this, she cannot possibly be wrong in what she says - and if she is, that should be sufficient enough for her to recognize that it's just her imagination.

A test will indicate whether the perceptions are based on information from our real, mutual world, or whether the perceptions arise from something that is more like automatic imagination or synesthesia.

UncaYimmy:

Besides the fact that x-rays aren't effective with muscle (ahem),

I knew it!

if it *is* her imagination (dollars to donuts that's the case), making her realize that is going to be exceptionally difficult.

Not at all. Why do you assume that? Just wait and see how I react if test results conclude no ESP ability.

Think about it. She fundamentally has two choices:

I fundamentally have two choices: ESP ability, or no ESP ability. Either case, the perceptions continue in the exact same way as before. Neither outcome of a test has me lose anything, since I have not attached myself to either outcome.

1) I am special. There's no one like me on the whole planet. I have an ability that can do so much good for so many people. Nobody else has ever done it. My ability will turn science on its ear. I will prove all the skeptics wrong.

In my humble opinion I already take great pride in my college and career accomplishments and ambitions and that brings me all the satisfaction and being a special somebody in my own life. I am here to investigate the medical perceptions I perceive. I haven't thought of my ability as going to do good to other people. I thought my career would. I'm not here to prove skeptics right or wrong. I think we should discuss this openly and if all of us are open to either outcome none of us will be proven right or wrong. We'll just find out what the outcome of a test is.

2) I'm just an ordinary person. I have been deceiving myself for years. I have announced to the world how special my abilities are, and now I have to admit it was all in my imagination. I have convinced myself and attempted to convince others, and now I have to admit I was completely wrong.

I already think highly of myself for myself and none of that will be taken away if the results of the test conclude no ESP ability. I'm just here to find out what the source and actual accuracy of the medical perceptions are. You're not very good at trying to analyze me. I love you anyway.

Most skeptics are not inclined to go down the "I am special" path, but suppose you were. How hard do you think it would be to come around once you got there?

What does this mean?

I think the mistake we skeptics make sometimes is not giving a soft enough landing pad.

My feelings about my investigation does not come from you skeptics. If I fail a test I will be happy because I will have acchieved the objective of the test, which is to find out whether I have ESP or no ESP. I'm intelligent enough not to attach myself to an idea that might be proven to not exist once a test result comes in.

stanfr:

Maybe it's the Swedish part that gives her an edge--i must confess it does for me

I'm glad you like the Swedish. Tristan Chi is Swedish too. And steenkh is Danish, which is just as good.

Akhenaten:
Referring to my observations page at www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html and me saying that I've not had informal tests on medical information from live persons,

What's this page all about then?

Those were not tests. They are examples of everyday experiences with the perceptions. The difference is that a test would implement conditions that control for the condition under which the perceptions take place, whereas real life examples take place as they do, in a very everyday situation where an apparent accuracy is not reliable as evidence toward ESP. I was asked by Forum members to write down my everyday experiences with the perceptions. Everything I do is wrong. Everything I don't do is wrong. It's all wrong.

The fact that you italicised the word "study" here seems to me to indicate that you're perfectly aware that all you're really doing is repeating all of your earlier outlandish, albeit vague, claims and simply substituting "study" for "test" and hoping nobody notices.

I'll bet you don't get away with it.

Listen to me real well: the study can conclude "no ESP" if the accuracy of the perceptions appears to be poor, and the study can conclude "proceed toward further testing" if the accuracy of the perceptions appears to be good. I was trying to be extremely clear on the fact that the study is not a test, therefore I italicized it. I even state that it is a "study, note: not a test". This is because a test can provide evidence FOR ESP, whereas a study can NOT provide evidence for ESP.

The study is to gain more experience with the perceptions. The conditions will initially be exactly what my real life experiences with the perceptions are. I will then one by one change one of the conditions under which the perceptions are made, approaching what a proper test setting would be. So, it is a study, not a test. The study will not only provide more material to contribute to the formation of a test, the study also provides a possible non-ESP ability plenty of opportunity to be revealed as such, and the study also tests the various test conditions, such as having a screen, so that I will know what we can include in a real test.

I think that the study is the perfect next step, so that I not waste the time and efforts of a skeptics group and can bring to them a claim that I have tested out and can provide them with the best test conditions under which my ability works. This is all about conforming what the perceptions are in life, to adapt them into a "laboratory setting" for a test. Think about what I said before you criticize. What I'm doing here is actually a very good thing, especially from the skeptics' point of view.

Pup:

If you're not trying to hang on to the possibility that you do have the ability, why in this thread did you change the suggested protocol from Miss Kitt's yes-or-no , to one that's easier to pass with cold reading?

Because Honeybunches I was proposing a quick to arrange screening test whose objectives are:
1) Quick and easy to assemble, and
2) Gives a non-ability the opportunity to be revealed as such so that no additional elaborate test need be done in vain, and
3) Shows how the perceptions come about in an everyday situation so that this knowledge can be used in the work of taking the phenomenon and adapting it to a laboratory test setting.

If it is concluded that my information matches with that given by persons to a satisfactory extent, then we will discuss the necessity for arranging further tests. Further tests will then be done under stricter and more scientific conditions.

The purpose of this initial test, is to assess whether there is reason to pursue further testing. In the case that there is no ESP ability involved, the purpose of this initial test is also to give such a non-ability a good chance of being revealed as such. This initial test will also show how I perform with the ability, what is and is not involved, and that knowledge will be useful for the arrangement of further and more elaborate tests.

This initial test should not concern with how to count points or percentage of accuracy. It is designed to give a general evaluation of whether there seems to be an ability or not, and as to how it works and how well it works.

I would also value having this opportunity to show how my ability works, when I use it in the way that I do normally, since real testing further ahead will be done under conditions that differ from what my real life experience is.

I realize the necessity and value of having simple, easy to put together, initial tests, mostly since I expect that a non-ability could be revealed rather easily at an early stage. This is not to say that a non-ability could not "pass" this initial test, because it can, and if it does it would definitely be detected at later stages in more elaborate testing.

Please read carefully what I have suggested before replying with comments or objections. Based on how I understand my ability, and what I can offer to suggest from my perspective as a scientist, I really see that this is a good way to begin. To some this might not seem like the scientific approach, but I think this gradual approach is beneficial as a quality control of whether there even is anything to study, as well as to ensure that we not waste resources further ahead.

All in accordance with my statement. I am now planning to have a study that is also "not a test", but a study to gather more knowledge that is used to adapt the phenomenon into a test setting. I strictly do not see a problem with having simpler studies or informal tests before having an actual and elaborate test, so I will proceed with this plan. I am not changing claims, or changing the approach, I am simply taking what the next step is toward a test.

Originally it was to be check-off, right or wrong, tonsils in or out, appendix in or out (post 26).

Yup. That is what we are discussing with the IIG West who want to test me. However with my local skeptics group I thought I could investigate into the perceptions on a gradual and different level, to build a stronger base on which a formal test can be done. Informal tests and studies will also benefit my work with the IIG.

The only reason I can see to substitute that for the original protocol is to make your ability appear to be real, for a little longer.

Nooooo!!!!!!!! Not the objective at all!!!!! The objective of a study is in fact to falsify a non-ability faster and sooner! Can you believe it? That's what I'm doing. The thing is, the IIG seems to be stuck in their work, and my local skeptics group informed me that we need more clarity into the claim before it can be adapted into a test setting. So I am taking that natural next step in investigating the claim properly. Nothing wrong is going on at all. I am doing a good job. It just takes time that's all, because I had put this in others' hands. Now that it is in my hands I can work faster.

So why did you want to change the protocol to one that's easier to pass the way people do, when they don't have a real ability?

Simpler tests have many benefits:
1) They can be arranged much sooner and easier so that we can begin to get some sort of results sooner. I realize that they may pass a non-ability, which is why any study or test that is less than acceptable can only conclude "no ESP", or "proceed to further testing", and can not conclude "ESP".
2) They give a non-ability plenty of opportunity to be falsified sooner.
3) They are easier to set up than an elaborate test.
4) They investigate the phenomenon so that it becomes easier to construct a test around the perceptions. They gather information that is useful further ahead in the design of a real test.

So, Pup, in fact rather than wanting to make a test that is easier to pass with a non-ability, my intentions are to get making progress sooner and to actually begin trying to falsify a non-ability. I plan to do a study in which I gradually change one condition at a time in the conditions toward a proper test setting. All is going well. In the wait before I am allowed to take a real test I am doing other things that are actually the best way to go about right now.

Ashles:

My post was quite a way back - you didn't need to respond to it if you didn't want to. But it seems you almost want this part of the discussion to be discarded, your opinion on it accepted and then we must talk of it no more. Doesn't work that way.

I have all intention of defending myself when criticized for things that are not correct, and to clarify and explain when false assumptions are made against me.

This is standard claimant behaviour and although you clearly do not like it described as such, we have a lot of experience with such claims. Sorry but this is a public forum and I am breaking no forum rules by responding as I see appropriate.

What ever. And I will defend myself when attacked with false assumptions.

I do see your behaviour as typical and you do have an occasional tendency to almost insist people do not raise certain issues or direct the conversation in certain directions, as you have done just here.

But there is so much garbage here that just isn't true! Some say that I would not accept the conclusion of no ESP, when I am quite clear about embracing either outcome of the test. Some say that I think I'm special when I don't feel that way. Others then criticize me for the opposite saying that there's something suspicious because I don't think I'm special. There is a lot of attack against me as a person and against how I feel about the perceptions. Criticism about my statements on anecdotal experiences that I have given with all intention of honesty, criticism against my educational background, and what else. I just tell you all how it is. How I really am feeling, and what really is going on. And the point is that some of the criticism concerns topics that are not of importance in the investigation. And I try to steer the conversation toward the discussion about the medical perceptions and their test design, as this thread was intended to be about.

You can ignore certain subjects or people or you can respond to them, but you can't order people to raise only the subjects you wish.

Well I have to respond when people say things about me that aren't true. I don't want lies circulating on my discussions thread. People would read them and get the wrong idea about me.

I could easily demonstrate my ability to hear or see under controlled conditions. I could do it today far beyond any shadow of doubt.
You cannot with your claimed ability.

To test my ability I need volunteers to participate in the attempted psychic medical diagnose. This is the hardest thing to arrange with regard to my tests.

Really that analogy is appalling.

Yes but I am explaining to you that my perceptions are as normal to me as vision and hearing is to you. In that way the analogy I used is quite appropriate.

If you genuinely do not understand why that comparison fails in every way then I doubt you will ever be able to be in any way logical about any aspect of this claim.

And I hope that you understand that I was saying that my perceptions are part of how I perceive the world and as such are normal to me.

Can I also remind you that you have set up a website around your suposed claims. And you have visited other websites to tell people abut your ability. Has anyone ever done that about their hearing or vision?
It's the double standards I am highlighting.

The perceptions are normal to me, yet I understand that they are not part of other people's experience. That is why I am investigating whether the perceptions are true ESP or formed by my imagination. And in either case they still remain part of what is my perception, like vision and hearing.

Please do not lie about my responses.

Please do not lie about my emotions.

Untrue.
I have never set up websites describing my unusual ability to 'see'.

My perceptions are as normal to me as eyesight. At the same time I understand that my perceptions are not as normal to others as their eyesight. That is why I on one part consider my perceptions normal, and on the other hand I made a website and an investigation into my perceptions. What I have said is the truth about what I think about this.

Again you attempt to forcefully direct what can and can't be discussed. Which is in itself quite rude.

It is not rude to ask that the discussion be steered away from personal attacks against me as a person.

Your analogy about eyesight is deeply flawed and I will continue pointing that out whether you like it or not (and part of me suspects you know this which is why you raise it again and then attempt to close the issue down almost to 'have the last word' on the subject).

My analogy about eyesight was most appropriate. To me my perceptions are as normal and no big deal as my eyesight is to me or as your eyesight is to you.

You absolutely do NOT consider your claimed ability as normal as eyesight or hearing because (...)

The perceptions are normal to me, yet I also understand that they are not normal to others.

Does that sound like someone who believes they possess something entirely mundane that is no more remarkable or unusual than eyesight or hearing?

Mundane to me, not mundane to certain others.

A lot of deluded or untruthful people say exactly the same thing. They 'know' because it is hapening to them. 'I know I saw a ghost. I was there!'
What would you say if Sylvia Browne declared she 'knows' she is hearing dead people, it is happening to her?
They ALSO think they are right.

I am arguing against when skeptics make incorrect assumptions about what I feel about my perceptions, then I say that I in fact am describing how I feel about my perceptions and you argue against that. Let me feel the way I feel and stop arguing against that.

Trying to demand our belief or acceptance will simpy not work.

I have never demanded belief or acceptance from you skeptics. I was just saying stop assuming that I am lying about every single thing that I say, even the trivial things like my educational background. I am wearing a white shirt today. Let's spend two pages arguing about the credibility of that.

This really will all be sorted a lot quicker if you try and reach some form of agreed testing rather than the protestations of being shocked (for reasons that are not obvious and again aren't really relevant). Can you do this? Even telling us why not may help reach a protocol which is the idea of this thread.
Isn't it?

I was shocked to find that skeptics are not always as open-minded or objective as I expected you to be. And I was shocked about all the personal attacks done against me here, about trivial things like "paranormal ability or no paranormal ability is just a label to me", "I am not trying to be special", or "you can't do two B.S. degrees at the same time". Yes this thread was meant to be about test design. But you guys can not say untrue things about me and expect me to not correct things that are incorrect. I want truth and clarity here.

But why not conduct such tests with one of the 2 independent agencies that you are in contact with?
If they are valid tests I am sure they will be happy to assist or advise.
If they are not valid tests then you ar only wasting your own time.
Please get their help, your own studies so far appear inadequate in terms of scientific rigour.

According to Dr. Carlson's lecture about how to test paranormal claimants, the testing groups are not to involve themselves in anything less than a formal test of the claim, excluding things such as demonstrations, studies, and informal tests. That is why I am expecting to conduct the study on my own, however I have asked for two of the local skeptics to participate somewhat. I will post the specifics of the study soon and only then will you be able to discuss its scientific rigour. The study will not be a test but it serves its own purposes that will be of benefit for a test.

You haven't actually done any objective testing yet.

Nope. It's hard to arrange for volunteers. I will have to advertise for volunteers for my study, but first I have to find out whether my study is legal.

I will leave it to the other posters to check whether that is even possible at you university.
Why try to do so many different majors? Surely you should get somewhere with some of them first before deciding to add yet more?
At the moment as you say yourself you haven't actually studied statistics or QM yet - isn't it best to see how you get on before adding yet more to your workload? (But this is more general conversation and not directly related to the ability so feel free to ignore if you want)

Whether what is even possible at my university? Why try to do so many different majors? Because I am headed toward research in Medical Physics and want to build new medical instruments that use engineered light structures to rearrange human tissue structure. That is why I am doing chemistry (for a fundamental understanding of human tissue), physics (understanding of light and radiation), electrical engineering (to build medical instruments). Many people who are dedicated toward a career combine the different fields of study that are part of their future work. Medical Physics is a very broad subject and I intend to be good at it. I am a straight A student and so far am getting somewhere with all the subjects.

JWideman:

For you, the paranormal is not only likely, but the most obvious.

What interests me is that I have accurately described health information that should not be accessible to ordinary senses of perception. Not even through cold reading etc. That is why I have this investigation.

And when those tests begin to show less favorable results, you'll abandon them and change your claim yet again.

I have consistently stated that my perceptions are the most frequent, most clear, and most interesting with medical information from live persons. I will not find a new claim if this one is falsified in a formal test.

But they do relate to your main claim. And the purpose of the informal tests was to prove to yourself that maybe, just maybe, you didn't have this ability after all. Stating, after the fact, that these were just tests to find the limits of your ability is how you deceive yourself, but won't fool us.

I have not had informal tests with my main claim. Let's just wait for documented examples of how this takes place because you are all ready to investigate and there is little material to work with right now.

It wouldn't have been lying at all for you to have said "I can't see anything in this particular case. Let's move on." It would have, of course, been close to admitting you don't have an ability and that's just too much for you.

With the picture tests done here on this thread and the chemical identification test done with Madalch I was exploring the limits of the perceptions. None of the conditions of those tests that were done were part of my claim, so that's why.

But your claim doesn't involve pictures, of course, so I guess we should just forget it.

Exactly. And the most clear perception I had was of neck vertebrae and that was correct. Let's move on to what my claim actually is.

My concern is that when a test of live persons doesn't work out for you, you will simply change your claim and say the test merely established your limits.

If a test is labelled as being a formal, real, test, I do not state that the test was designed to test my limits. I am planning to have what I call a study, and it is meant to test my limits which is why an apparent positive result does not conclude ESP ability.

Ashles:

Why are we not concentrating entirely on the cereal expriement?

Because I am concentrating on the main part of my claim in which perceptions occur the most often, the easiest, and without effort.

Anita do you have any objection to the cereal testing with ECarlson or IIG?

No I don't but I want to test the medical perceptions instead.

UncaYimmy:

Yes or No: Has it been established that green and purple mammoth does NOT live on the UNCC campus?

If I make a significant amount of incorrect statements about people's health, what makes it wrong to conclude that there is no ESP ability? The falsifiability of my claim is not equivalent to that of mammoths.

We can be in a situation where neither has been established just yet. If it is shown to not exist, it has been falsified.

And the hypothesis of ESP can be falsified by making a significant amount of incorrect descriptions of health in which I stated confidence during a test.

When confronted with a variety things to test, do the easiest ones first.

And the easiest one for me is medical perceptions from live people. Let's just all forget about chemical identification, I will not focus my efforts on that now.

Doing this test would be an incredible demonstration of good faith on your part. You would earn my respect as well as that of others. Hell, even James Randi would be impressed if a claimant like yourself actually took the advice of experts and performed a real test.

A real test will be done on medical information.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 19:

skeen:

I just wanted to checkin at this stage, to express once more than I see absolutely no difference between Anita and other claimants. It was said that her cooperation is what separated her, but I'm seeing little of that as of late.

How has my cooperation become reduced from what it was before? I apologize on behalf of the testing organization that had agreed to arrange a test with me as it takes them months to get back with me each time whereas I always reply within the next day. I think the problem is impatience and lack of progress. I do not feel responsible for the delays since I was doing all I could think of as a claimant, but from last week's meeting with the local skeptics I understand that I must take more initiative myself as the claimant and I am doing that by planning a study that will make test arrangements easier.

Little of real, tangible cooperation that would genuinely work toward establishing an ability. She is absolutely indistinguishable from other claimants, who drag it all out, who apologize for failed tests, and inevitably walk away defeated, self-deluded in their success.

I have been working as fast as I can, patiently waiting for replies from the IIG who are arranging a test with me. I do not intend for things to take so long. I thought I was working with others who turn out to not be working so much. I would not apologize for a failed test. There is nothing wrong with failing a test. That would reach the objective of acchieving a conclusion from a test. I have not walked away, I am still here. The ESP hypothesis has not been falsified yet, so nothing has been defeated yet. How am I self-deluded in success by stating that I perceive medical images that so far have appeared to have accuracy, where all I conclude is to proceed toward further tests?

Anita, you seem to think that proving "no ability" should be as conclusive as proving an ability. Don't you realize that no ability is the default? We conclude that given no evidence whatsoever, you have no ability.

If I make a significant amount of incorrect answers during a formal test, I will conclude "no ability". Why is that wrong? Well based on my experience I remain unconvinced of neither ESP or no ESP, whereas you seem to have concluded no ESP even though there is no evidence against it. I think in this way I am being more objective than you are.

If is clear to me that other than being self-deluded, you're actually lying about what you think you're able to do. Take actually seeing muscle, etc. like an X-ray; this is an instantly testable claim, that you can confirm with relative ease.

You have proven yourself to be self-deluded, since you are deluded about X-rays seeing muscle which they in fact do not. The fact that you say I am lying about what I can do when I know I am not lying about what I can do also confirms with me that you are deluded about what I can do.

You were at a skeptics meeting. Surely you must have seen through people then? That would have been the perfect time to tell people what you saw. As you say, it's not a big deal to you; it's a regular occurrence.

There was no opportunity for me to attempt psychic medical diagnose or to present my perceptions to them. If you don't believe me please contact the skeptics group and ask them yourself.

If you were wrong in what you said, then right there and then, you have proven to yourself that you have no ability. If you were right, you would be on a very good road toward proving your claimed abilities.

And that is true.

I have to concur with others that the view that you don't treat your ability as special, and neither do your family or friends absolutely laughable, and ludicrous. I question your very intelligence with crazy logic like that. What utter nonsense.

You are just being ridiculous yourself. I challenge you to spend two weeks with me, getting to know me and my perceptions and perhaps you too would get used to it. The fact that you are arguing against what actually takes place, that is, that those who know me do not act like it is anything special, further proves to me that you are self-deluded. I have told you the truth about how people react about the ability, and the fact that you assume something else that is incorrect and try to turn that against me makes you appear very ridiculous to me. What do you want me to say? That my family and friends get really excited when I know their health and how they are feeling? Well they don't and if I said so I would be lying.

You seem to fail to realize that if you have this ability, to reiterate, you would be the most incredible person in the history of the entire world. As if people would treat such an incredible, and downright magical ability nonchalantly.

So what. It has not been exposed or established yet.

People are pushing for a test, but I'd like to see something. Just something. I can see a cup, and say, "look, that's a cup". Do the same to a skeptic, without cold-reading them, and tell them what you see, if you see something. If you don't, don't make a claim - you just give yourself room for apologetics (which you've done a few times in this thread alone). Just say what you see.

And I will as soon as the opportunity comes my way. The problem is that although I meet with people all the time, I have to be careful who I share this with. I am arranging a study where I will ask for the participation of volunteers who allow me to attempt psychic medical diagnose with them. These will be persons I have not met before.

As of right now, you have no ability as far as anyone is concerned. I'm starting to feel more and more sorry for you as I see you cling tightly on to the vague possibility that you have it, a possibility that only you can see, for reasons you should discuss with a psychiatrist.

I perceive medical information and when I check for its accuracy it has so far been very accurate. There is nothing sorry about proceeding toward tests. The fact that you are getting upset is just a consequence of your impatience. I would not favor ESP over no ESP, I just want the results of a test. And if the perceptions are not based on ESP, it is not the case of a psychiatric condition. You however should seek instant medical attention for thinking that X-rays are used for imaging of muscle.

(Sorry guys for being so harsh, I was just talking in the same language as you guys. And it is not very nice.)

Yubi:

Would you need to see the face of a person you are detecting health information from? That is, if a test is made up of people having a certain problem and people not having it, it seems a common risk would be that especially facial expressions or other signs of agony could be detected by vision alone. If a person has, say, a tooth ache, would you still have to see the face of the person, or could he/she be hooded?

Based on experience I do not specificly have to see the face to construct medical perceptions. I will be conducting a study shortly in which I attempt medical perceptions from people whose face I see, and others when I do not see their face, and can compare the results. I do not have to see the face to detect dental information. After all, I see through the facial tissue, so it is equivalent to detect dental information from seeing through neck tissue. I was considering having people faced the other way, but I can also try with persons who are hooded on the upcoming study.

Tristan Chi:

Why did you choose the phrase "vision from feeling"?
Isn't "feeling from vision" a more accurate description of what you claim to experience?

Because I am under the impression that the perceptions come about when I am sensing vibrational information through the sense of feeling, which in me is then translated into among other categories of information visual information. So it is vision from feeling. Good question. Feeling from vision would also work, since I need to see the person I am perceiving about, and among other categories of information I perceive feeling such as pain and discomfort for instance. But the perceptions from feeling addresses what I believe to be an even more fundamental source of the perceptions than is vision. I believe that vision simply locates the information that is then felt. What do I know, huh.
Akta, stanfr tycker om oss.

Pup:

Apparently, in the kind of face-to-face medical diagnosis that you're claiming is your strength, you actually "saw"--not guessed--that someone either had, or didn't have, his/her tonsils, and in fact the opposite was true.

So now, at least once, you have been inarguably incorrect in a face-to-face medical test. Or is there some other explanation?

Actually, I concluded that I was unable to detect whether the tonsils had been removed or not removed, and I stated that as my answer. That is the explanation. No incorrect "guess" or "perception" was made in the tonsillectomy example.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 19:

Belz:

No. But think about it. If someone claims to be able to heat up liquids with his mind, and nobody's ever been shown to be able to do this before, what do you think would be the response when he'd post here ?

The response would be "prove it! test it! give us some evidence and stop talking about it! we've been talking about it for 20 pages now and there is absolutely no evidence or material to work with here! the fact that you are just talking about it makes it seem as if you are either making it up or are entirely self-delusional, and you are clearly here for attention and you think you are special! all we want is for you to present some type of evidence with your claim. film it, photograph it, have academic persons witness it, anything, but do not just come here and talk about it because it is bringing down your credibility! we've seen plenty of claims made before and they never amount to anything, and you have to work harder to prove yourself or we will assume the same! how hard is it to put together a simple demonstration? at least show some intention of approaching a real, reliable test! you are wasting thread-space and our time and efforts and that is just immoral! we are starting to get very tired of you so it is time for you to take some more action toward testing your claim! or get out!" Or, that is what I would say.

To which he would reply, "I have done all I could. I contacted a testing organization a year and a half ago, and they are very slow in their progress. it takes them months each time to get back with me, and often I even e-mail them asking for any updates or concerns, and receive no reply. then when a reply does come to me from them, I reply back with them within the next day, only to find myself waiting again. that is how I thought the paranormal challenge application process would take place, so I found myself in a waiting game that leads nowhere. I then decided to come here to this JREF Forum thread to discuss my claim with you guys, because I am really interested in testing the claim and want to benefit from your perspectives and suggestions as skeptics. instead I often find that I am criticized here a lot for reasons that I believe are based on impatience, and we are all getting frustrated at the lack of evidence at this point. I recently came across a local skeptics group in my area and attended a meeting with them last week, and I finally had the chance to spend some time with skeptics in life and I learned a lot that is actually helpful in the progress of this investigation. I learned that I had assumed that it is the skeptics organization that will design the test for me, that it is in fact me as the claimant who has to do all the work. but the good thing is I can now take more initiative myself and am arranging a study to learn more about how to take what I can do in real life, and to adapt it to a test setting, because it is this step that is where we are stuck."

To which the skeptics say, "we are getting fed up with your claims and it is taking far too long for you to set up any kind of simple tests. we want evidence - now!! give it to us, or, or... we will not believe in anything you've said! we don't believe you are emotionally attached to your claimed ability! and we don't believe that you aren't emotionally attached to your claimed ability either! and I don't believe that your family isn't amazed when you boil water with your mind, because your ability would be the most amazing thing in the world! and I don't believe you went to college at all like you said, it is clearly a lie! [this one's for you UncaYimmy] and you are self-delusional about there not being any purple mammoths at your house, did you really look everywhere? under the bed? and I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt, you are clearly mistaken! everything you do is wrong! everything you don't do is wrong! it is all wrong!"

So he continues rabbling on, still without presenting any evidence what so ever or showing any initiative toward taking real tests, making the silly excuses that "I have been unable to test this claim myself much because water that is willing to participate in being boiled by my mind is very hard to come by..." Oops, did I get carried away?

And as well it should be. There is no known mechanism to allow this man to do this, and he should be aware that not only are other people going to be justifiably skeptical of his claim, but that he should be, as well.

I understand. I think the main concern here is impatience and the slow progress.

But will you ? If you test for this ability in controlled conditions under a protocol to which you've agreed, and fail, would that shake your confidence ? Or will you find an excuse as to why you failed but really do have the ability ? I'm not assuming you will, but so many people have that statistics seem to lean in that direction.

I am prepared to accept having my ESP falsified, but only when we are at that situation can we tell what in fact will be my reaction. I expect to thoroughly try out the test conditions before implementing them on a formal test, so at that point no excuses could be made.

Dear Locknar:
When I said, "I know I have medical perceptions, and I know I will continue to have them no matter what the outcome of a test is.", Locknar replied,

Given this, no amount of reasoning or evidence will convince her that she does not have these "amazing powers."

But Honey, you are entirely wrong again. I was saying that the perceptions occur on their own and that no matter what they turn out to be (ESP, synesthesia, or something else) they will continue to take place. After a long talk with Ashles we concluded that "perceptions" refers simply to the medical images without any assumption implied as to their accuracy, and as such they will continue.

Belz:

Uh-huh, but without medical training how would you tell what the condition is just by seeing it ? Do you have medical training ?

I do not have much formal medical training although I have interest in medicine and pick up information from media. But even with limited medical knowledge it is possible to describe a health problem at least to the extent where a condition can be identified. What part of the body is affected, what organs and tissues, what feeling is associated with the problem, and in many cases I do recognize it from having encountered it before to know it by name. Even if I had extensive medical knowledge there should be plenty of health information that can be used in a test without concern that I would be using medical knowledge for their detection.

And I only remember hits because there have only been hits, and this is especially true with regard to the experiences listed on the observations page where I made sure to list all results regardless of their apparent accuracy. (Note: I like to say "apparent accuracy" because the accuracy based on the accounts of persons has so far not been reliable enough no matter what the intentions of those persons have been. A test setting should hopefully deal with this concern.)

JcR:

As far as my little Saltshaker story goes
Well I feel like that blind person here at times.
Text by itself is not going to give me a true insight
into your visions. They can give me ideas and thoughts
But they would be my thoughts and notions formed by my perceptions.
And to be honest my little stabs at you were unfair on my part.
So beyond all that. Do you believe a real world series of tests
could be of value to your field of study ?
Its funny how things in life develop out of
the most surprising places.

Another series of thoughts from you that I can only describe as something poetic in nature. Well, for you to truly understand my perception entirely in the way that I perceive things, rather than just formed from my words to you, in which true understanding would be lost and some that does not exist would be added, you would have to become conscious of others so that you can reach into their minds and feel what they feel, and see what they've seen. Maybe that is something that I do with this ability, and maybe it is something we will all one day learn. How is that for an answer? And I hope that my field of study, investigation, can be conformed to a real world series of tests and I will do all that I can to ensure that this can be done and that would help to bring what is my personal experience into the mutual world of experience that we all share.

volatile:

And the same thing Anita's done here -- "I wasn't feeling right", "I saw something but didn't tell you", all the rest.

Will not happen in a real test. I promise.

Ashles:

But we only have your word for that. Why is that hard to understand?

But I know that my anecdotal experiences that are listed on the observations page are not good enough as evidence! I have already stated that! All they are are what compel me toward further testing.

I'm afraid you'll have to get used to that. On this site unverified claims will be continually questioned.

Yes but things like whether I think I am special or whether my friends think I am special, that are trivial, that are not even part of my claims!

Obviously it is not the end of discussion. Unveridfied claims will continue to be questioned.
Your new study, unless run with independent witnesses will also be questioned.
It's called skepticism.

One, hopefully two, of the local skeptics will attend my study and write down their observations and comments on how the study takes place.

Feel free to stop making unverified claims at any point. Until then I (and others) will continue to question in, as I may have mentioned a few times, the continuing complete absence of any independent testing.

What I am addressing is that trivial things such as my emotions or how I will respond to potential falsified ESP, the fact that I think a paranormal ability is just a label, whether my friends and family think I am special, or if I am really taking the classes I say I am taking, are not even part of my claim!

Parameters which, it now strangely appears you don't even know as you've never investigated them before? After all these years of experiencing this 'ability'? It actually feels like we are going backwards now.

I can be very clear about what my ability does in real life situations, but it is an entirely different thing to take a real life experience and adapt it to a test setting. And that is what we are working on now. We are not going backwards, we are proceeding toward a formal test.

desertgal:

I don't accept anecdotal evidence, especially as fantastic as the claims you are making, when there is a continued lack of proven evidence to back it up. I believe you are delusional and self deceptive. You can proceed towards further tests, but I believe that all they will show is your proven ability to dismiss any findings that don't show your alleged ability with excuses, which is the nature of self deception. As well, I'm not impatient for the results of any of these tests, because I don't believe they will ever happen. I've seen folks here offer you very simple, solid, "yes or no" protocols, which you have dismissed out of hand for protocols of your own making which give you wiggle room. The only thing that baffles me is why you came here at all.

I know that the observations are anecdotal evidence, if even that, and I have consistently described them as such, and I have never expected any of you to take them as evidence. They did however take place exactly as described, but you don't have to believe that. All I conclude from that is to proceed toward further testing, but I have already said that so many times. I am not delusional or self deceptive. I perceive medical information which has apparent good accuracy, and the only thing I conclude is to proceed toward proper tests. To conclude toward proper tests is not a delusional or self deceptive conclusion, rather it should be encouraged.

I admit now that I need more experience with the perceptions to determine exactly what test conditions are acceptable and what are not, and to present a better list of what ailments to use in a test setting. It is one thing to be clear about how an "ability" works in an everyday situation, but to take that and adapt it into a test setting involves more work, because each condition that needs to be added and each condition that must be removed when transferring the environment from everyday to laboratory must be tested by me and approved before I can state whether the ability is going to be able to perform under those conditions. This is not a problem that I would have caused, it is simply the way a scientific test is approached.

I am here to discuss the perceptions and test design. If we all stop arguing about whether to me paranormal is just a label, or whether I am doing two B.S. degrees at the same time, we could make more real progress.

I believe you are unconsciously using cold reading/retained information/common perception techniques to get the results you want.

Fair, I agree that unintended cold reading is possible. I also agree that I have had experiences where cold reading should not be possible which is why I proceed toward further testing. Where cold reading should not be possible anyway.

I did expect that type of response from you eventually, though. Maybe I'm psychic?

If I am accused of negative things that are incorrect then yes it is very likely that eventually I will speak up for myself.

When? You have recited experiences on this forum, in several different threads, to support claims that, if true, would make you the most extraordinary person in the history of mankind. That is hardly an indication that you are attempting to remain rooted in reality. The skeptics, yes. You, no.

I encounter several comments made by skeptics here that imply to me that they are not objective. To for instance state that one (not necessarily you, in this case, desertgal) believes that I am lying or deluded about things that I know for a fact but can not prove are not examples of lying or delusion prove to me that some form beliefs that are not true. I however try to remain open for all possibilities until proven otherwise.

In the end, all I can say is that I hope you do get psychiatric help for these continued delusions and the self deception that accompany them. Seriously. Regardless of what "tests" you perform, you've clearly stated that you will continue to believe in your alleged abilities. If so, and you continue to "diagnose" people based on that alleged ability (...)

I have definitely not and absolutely not stated that I will continue to believe in an alleged ability, because I do not believe in an alleged ability now either. All I believe is that I perceive images that have apparent accuracy and to proceed toward further testing. I do not openly diagnose people nor do I have plans of doing so. I only do this with friends and family and always after offering a thorough disclaimer. I am very responsible in this. Maybe you should seek psychiatric help for believing things that are not true or part of reality, such as your belief that I would be diagnosing people, or your belief that I believe in having an ability.

Ashles:

Yet you still do not understand why the concerns of cold reading are repeatedly brought up?

But of course I do! I bring them up a lot too! That is why I am arranging a study where I will try different test conditions that are designed to prevent the many forms of cold reading.

Careful, the delightful little science munchkin act is slipping.

I didn't know I was a delightful little science munchkin?

Making out that you agree that your own anecdotes are of no use (which is what my post was about) is in strange contradiction to many of your other posts where we are instructed to accept your anecdotes as fact.

But I have consistently stated that all my anecdotal experiences do is present examples of perceptions that I've had and their apparent accuracy, and to show what experiences compel me to further testing. I was specificly asked by members of this thread to begin documenting my perceptions, and so I have. Everything I do is wrong. Everything I don't do is wrong. When I do something, it is wrong. When I don't do it, it is wrong. Maybe I just have to learn how to determine which of my options is the least wrong? I do not expect you to accept my anecdotes as evidence! All I say is please accept that they are true to me, in which all you accept is that they are reasons why I am proceeding toward further tests.

Still I'm sure we all look forward to your next series of unverified anecdotes study.

I hope to have two skeptics attend the study with me so that they can document and verify what takes place. This way the results of the study would not be considered anecdotal.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I've been watching this thread for a while now.

You have got to understand that no one on THIS forum is going to take anything you say seriously in absence of testing. If your ability is real, then you would have had a much bigger impact if you had verified it scientifically first - and perhaps introduced it at a university or somehere else semi-legitimate rather than a public skeptic's forum. You certainly aren't the first one to make these sorts of claims. Whether or not you're the first one to actually have something behind them remains to be seen.

As for me, I place you in the giant "unverified" bucket right next to the Hutchison Effect. At least you're in good company.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 19:

volatile:

I'd skimmed over that bit. This, to my mind, absolutely guarantees that all that is at play here is cold reading. You need to see someone's face to "see" that they have a vasectomy? Really?

The upcoming study will reduce influence of any various types of cold reading, and a real test should have eliminated the concern of cold reading entirely. Without arguing in defence for some of the experiences I've had where cold reading should not have taken place, it is necessary to provide documented examples of perceptions and only then can any of us properly discuss what cold reading could have been involved and whether it could or could not have lead to the conclusions that were made on health information.

Experience points that I need to see some part of exposed skin to obtain perceptions, although I do not have any example of trying otherwise. The upcoming study will answer many of these questions.

My word, Anita - you need to read more about Cold Reading. Try and get your hands on a copy of "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" by Ian Rowland... it will open your eyes.

Of course I need to know more about cold reading. In fact I will get that very book, thank you for suggesting it.

Old man:

I just assure you I am not trying to trick anyone, and the anecdotal experiences I've described, all took place in the way I described prefer to remember them.
Fixed it for you.

Nonsense Old man. You are entitled to suspect so, but I know the truth about what took place because I was there.

It’s a case of the old (Arabic?) proverb – (paraphrasing)
“If one man calls you an ass, pay no attention. If ten men do, go look for a saddle.”

And it's a case of my proverb, "If you weren't there, you don't know and can only speculate."

Anita, why did you seem to be denying knowledge of anatomy, earlier in this thread?

Because I wasn't? The issue is that depending on how the question of my anatomy knowledge is asked, I realize that I have some anatomical knowledge, but that it is not as good as it could be. I do not deny any of my knowledge. Let me exaggerate to illustrate my point. If someone asks me if I have as much medical knowledge as a doctor, I would have to be humble and say no I don't have quite that much medical knowledge. If someone then asks if I have as little medical knowledge as the average person, I would have to be open and admit that I have more medical knowledge than the average person. The emphasis of my answer depends on how the question was asked, and it's been asked in more than one ways here. You guys are such a fun bunch.

And if I were running the test, I’d have to include the possibly that your ESP just wasn’t working at that time, since you do claim that it doesn’t always work. Failing to check that your ‘power’ is ‘on’ is a flaw in your testing procedure.

On the contrary on real, formal tests I will always state my confidence level and whether I believe my abilities are working. And at that point no excuses can be made to disregard any incorrect answers.

Actually, the control readers should be skilled ‘cold readers’, not physicians, since cold reading (not medical knowledge) is what is likely to be the mechanism, here.

Yes. But medical knowledge can be used to interpret external symptoms into corresponding health information that is not always obvious for someone who is able to cold read but has insufficient medical knowledge. How about persons who are good at both cold reading and medical knowledge?

However, I notice that you now seem to be saying that you can ‘perform on demand’. Can you clarify this a little?

Yes I can choose to do a head-to-toe inspection to detect information that isn't already obvious or clear enough to get my attention on its own. I intend to apply my "on demand" skills on medical information tests.

I’ve suggested that you do this (as a control for any tests), and you rejected the idea. Why is it a good idea now?

I'm sorry if I missed it. It is a good idea though to work on identifying possible, even if unintentional, cold reading, as such must be eliminated from formal tests.

I haven't had time to update my website yet. There is a lot of things I need to add, clarify, and also to change. I've been stuck here responding to the comments about me.

So, you should be able to go the mall tomorrow, and in an hour or two be able to come back to this thread and tell us whether any or all of the following - circumcision, vasectomy, appendectomy, tonsillectomy, hysterectomy, tubal ligation, cardiac surgery, dental bridge work - are suitable for testing. I look forward to the coming voyage of discovery that you’ve promised us!

I absolutely love the idea of going out there and doing my thing, but I really need to consult legal council to find out whether the study I plan to do is in accordance with law first. I am not making excuses or trying to postpone the study, I am simply being responsible in my approach.

Moochie:

ETA: I notice you're repeating your site's address every so often. Afraid we'll forget?

Actually no. I am thinking that people who haven't been following this entire (exhausting) thread may simply cut in on any of these pages and when I refer to "the observations page" they would not know what that means, so every now and then I add a link to that page.

Diogenes:

These skills are very precise and accurate, except when they are not ..
Even though Anita successfully uses these skills all the time, when it comes to testing them, they seem to shift to the ' not working ' end of the chart ..

There is no such example. The problem here isn't that my skills would not be working on a test. The problem we deal with right now is how to establish the conditions under which a test can be done, and to gain more experience into the perceptions to identify the most suitable ailments for a test. So the study I am arranging is up next.

As I've mentioned before .. I believe I have these same abilities; however, so far, I seem to be stuck in the ' not working ' mode ....

There is no case of "not working". The reason a test is not done at this point is because I need to become more clear about how to bring my claim into a laboratory, test, setting. Now before you criticize this, a person can be very clear about their claim and how it works in everyday situations. There is then more work involved in investigating how to take that claim out of the everyday environment and put it into a test environment. Can I write down my observations rather than speak them? What part of a person do I really have to see? Can a full screen be used? And although I could list many ailments that appear to work in the everyday environment, which ailments can be taken into the test environment? That is the stage our work is at now.

 

[Hokulele]

Just to be clear, do you plan to attempt the more rigorous version of the cereal test, or has that been completely abandoned?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 20:

Ashles:

So if Anita gets readings for roughly one in 20 people, would a sample of 60 people give enough to form any kind of conclusions?

Surely with the level of accuracy displayed for each time the ability is active, even three people analysed would give a reasonably large amount of data to work with?

I suspect that these three would not be plenty enough to calculate the outcome of a test. I also suspect that I would detect information in more than 1 in 20 people. Perhaps the question is, how large could a pool of volunteers be before it is considered that the test can not be arranged. I expect to do better than that though, but the study should show.

UncaYimmy:

You're 26 and claim to have had this ability all your life. You started your website 18 months ago. You came here over a month ago claiming that your ability "seems to be either true extrasensory perception or the case of something similar to synesthesia..." And yet you don't have even just one properly constructed test under your belt. To make it worse, you resist the testing protocols we have suggested. If you feel insulted, change your behavior.

1) I was assuming that it was my job as the claimant to trust that the testing organization (IIG) would arrange the test and all I do is wait and participate when contacted by them. From last week's meeting with the local skeptics group I realize that this is not the case, so now I can begin to take my own initiative and am arranging a study.
2) College.

Old man:

Despite the fact that you're implying that your ability is likely to be manifested multiple times every day.

It can manifest many times a day depending on what people I meet on a particular day. I can of course not approach each person to check for the accuracy of my perceptions.

And you want us to believe that you can't seem to define your 'power' better than you have so far?

You bet. I don't know if I perceive information if I don't see the person, ie. a full screen because I have no such particular experience. I do not know if I can detect appendectomy because I have no such experience. And so on. The upcoming study will deal with some of these questions.

desertgal:
You notice the contradiction between this forum where I say that I have not concluded whether I have ESP or not, and my website saying that I have ESP. This was unintentional, but I stand by the statement that I have not concluded having ESP. It is a case of wording error, and my website needs to be updated. I've been here on the discussions thread for over a month now and have learned a lot that I want to add to my website. Thanks guys.

UncaYimmy:

She's utterly convinced what she is doing is real. She's just wondering whether it's ESP or synesthesia.

And that was a natural assumption to make based on the fact that I had not encountered a single incorrect medical perception to date. Please have some understanding towards that. I am however open to encountering an incorrect perception on upcoming studies and tests. I have since making the early posts realized that it is too early to conclude that all perceptions including future ones would always be accurate. The complete accuracy was just what I came to this thread with and started with.

Miss Kitt:

On your ability and its prevalance: You suggest that, perhaps, 1 in 20 people "ping your radar" with a health issue. (I note that you said that may not be an accurate fraction, thank you for noting that.) Do you know what your percentage is for people who do have health issues? That is, when you go to see a doctor (or to the health clinic that undoubtedly is at/near your college for the students), about what fraction of the people in the waiting room do you see something from? I am not asking you to try to verify any reading, here, just if you do a walk-through of the lobby, how many do you see something in?

The 1 in 20 refers to information that comes to me on its own. I can choose to do a head-to-toe reading in any persons at which I will detect something in every person. I do like your idea of going out and finding out what and how often I sense in a crowd of people, I do that sometimes.

You indicated in one of those lengthy posts that you know you have synesthesia, which may or may not be related to your medical perceptions. What form of synesthesia do you have? This is an important piece of information in regards your claim.

In a general sense I associate all things with a feeling or character. Certain things are associated with color or shape, in ways that suggest to me some extent of synesthesia.

Have you thought about the possibility that you do not receive perceptions at all? That is, that what you do is have 'blips' of imagination that are not based upon what you are looking at, except very indirectly? All of your comments seem to pointed to the two options, A) It is ESP-based medical percpetion, or B) It is non-ESP medical perception. These are not the two only options.

Of course. When I say "perceptions" I mean that it is the images I become aware of, and as such they are either based on true information from the real world or based on imagination. It was after a long discussion with Ashles about what words to use when we agreed to use "perceptions", as opposed to observations for instance, which would imply that the true source or accuracy of the images has not been established.

I don't want you to hear this as a slam, or accusing you of anything, because I have had experiences in my life that seemed to be real, but were not. What if, for instance, you did a test and (unbeknownst to you) there was an experienced actor in the group?--and you 'read' in him certain medical issues that he did not have, but was showing subtle symptoms of?

And once again Miss Kitt says something that is absolutely brilliant. I fully expect to not be influenced by external symptoms, whether these external symptoms truly do depict actual ailments or are faked or hypochondriac. It is my claim to detect actual health information, and it is my claim to not be influenced by cold reading of external signals whether those external signals would be in my favor or not.

The most reasonable conclusion from such a result would be that you are performing some kind of mental modelling based upon subtle behavioral information...which means that your 'vision' of the tissues involved, etc. was purely created by your imagination. You would have NO ability to see into tissues or read vibrations for their information. Is that possibility one you are willing--and able--to allow for?

Yes I am definitely aware of the possibility of influence of external signals on the perceptions. However I claim to not be influenced by external signals.

Take a few minutes to think about that, it's a tough concept. "Losing" my ability was quite disappointing and even painful, and took me a long time to process. I had to accept it, because--as a science student (I went to Harvey Mudd)--I knew the test was well-designed. I knew what it implied; and I knew that the test had "felt" just as usual. But the results clearly showed that I was unconsciously reacting to other people, not the target.

I am prepared to possibly fail a test, and I like your suggestion of "actors" faking external signs and would welcome that to a test.

UncaYimmy:

I had been under the assumption that the testing organizations would do most of the work in arranging the tests, but from Thursday's lecture with Dr. Eric Carlson I learned that it is I as the claimant who must do most of the work and be the principal investigator into my own claim.

Did I not say this to you several times?

If you did I apologize. Having things explained in person simply has more of an effect than text. Sorry.

I'm so happy because I have finally caught up with my posts on this thread. I can finally tell you all about Thursday's meeting with the skeptics group, and all about my planned study. But I have to work fast because before I know it I'll be swamped with inaccurate assumptions that I have to respond to all over again.
Now I'm crying because I realize that the thread has reached a point where I now have to start skipping questions and comments in order to keep up, and that is when I will become accused of selectively avoiding questions or for having something to hide, which won't be true at all! The times of when I've replied to every single comment might have come to an end.

ETA: I'd better work fast before y'all wake up.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Hokulele:
I focus all my efforts on arranging the medical information tests now.

 

[Belz...]

Oops, did I get carried away?

A little. But my point was that you have to expect some flak, here. The best way to silence your critics (other than shooting them in the head) is to agree to a test protocol as soon as possible and proceed with the test.

I am prepared to accept having my ESP falsified, but only when we are at that situation can we tell what in fact will be my reaction. I expect to thoroughly try out the test conditions before implementing them on a formal test, so at that point no excuses could be made.

Indeed. Making up excuses would make you seem dishonest, and you'd find it hard to have other opportunities to test your alleged abilities.

I honestly hope you truly are ready to accept that your claim is false, if the results of the test should show this. The alternative, that we've seen in so many others, is to ignore the result of the test and continue to convince yourself that you were right all along, anyway. But that wouldn't be very practical, would it ?

I do not have much formal medical training although I have interest in medicine and pick up information from media. But even with limited medical knowledge it is possible to describe a health problem at least to the extent where a condition can be identified. What part of the body is affected, what organs and tissues, what feeling is associated with the problem, and in many cases I do recognize it from having encountered it before to know it by name. Even if I had extensive medical knowledge there should be plenty of health information that can be used in a test without concern that I would be using medical knowledge for their detection.

Okay... but could you tell emphysema from any other lung condition, for example ? And, if so, what's helping you make a diagnostic. If I had X-ray vision, for instance, how could I identify cavities in somebody's teeth if I don't have the necessary medical knowledge ?

And I only remember hits because there have only been hits

I strongly suggest you retract that statement. Even the best professionals make mistakes in their field, so it's very hard to believe that you would be 100% correct. As I told you about cloud-busting, those folks also think they only get hits because they tend not to notice the misses, or explain them away. Test or no test, the best thing you could do is to start noticing the misses.

And if you still think you've got a 100% success rate, then you should be in for quite a shock following the test.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

My closest family are aware of the ability to some extent, yes. And yes they are relatively unimpressed by it.

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds ? ( nice pun though )

 

[Ashles]

Whether what is even possible at my university? Why try to do so many different majors? Because I am headed toward research in Medical Physics and want to build new medical instruments that use engineered light structures to rearrange human tissue structure. That is why I am doing chemistry (for a fundamental understanding of human tissue), physics (understanding of light and radiation), electrical engineering (to build medical instruments). Many people who are dedicated toward a career combine the different fields of study that are part of their future work.

I'd like to build a hover car. Presumably if I study Physics (to deal with gravity), aerodynamics (so it's a good shape) and electrical engineering (so I can wire it all correctly) then I'll be able to build one?
The reason I have asked this is that your attitude towards science seems rather cavalier and without depth.

If you want to create entirely new devices based on new scientific concepts (which you can't describe or understand except referring vaguely to 'vibration') then there has to be some form of facts or discipline to build on. Without that your wishes are no different to me declaring I wish to build a hover car using 'ionising gravity reverse pulsations'.

And if you want an understanding of human tissue wouldn't biology or medicine be more appropriate than chemistry? Biochemistry or physiology perhaps? Anatomy?

(N.B. If you want to build these new devices based on known technology and theories then that's fine, makes sense and I apologise as I may have got the wrong end of the stick. That might be because you haven't detailed what specific devices or technology you would be using. Please, assume we can keep up with any scientific details you provide.)