Vision From Feeling

[Ashles]

Ashles:
And if you attended a good school they would encourage you to have creative ideas in physics.

Up to a point. There has to be some realistic way to study or investigate your 'creative ideas' otherwise you should probably head over to the Creative English school and start writing fiction.

As you study your courses you would realize whether to drop your idea or perhaps to focus on some detail aspect of it, such as levitation technologies. I have a fellow optics student whose dream project is to build teleportation technologies.

But it's one thing to study specifics involved with such matters, another to just be interested in the concept.
One can study the uncertainty principle, entanglement, local realism etc. which are real areas of research. Teleportation at the moment is completely impossible.
If somebody told me they were interested in teleportation I would think that sounded a bit childish unless they went into detail regarding the specific barriers they were interested in overcoming.
Scientists don't just dream about exciting technologies, they study in detail the information that leads to reaching those technologies.

No one is discouraging him, he will find out for himself whether it is a plausible research interest in this time.

Dreaming is all nice and good but I have a bit more interest in hearing from people who have a decent amount of research and information behind them who then announce - "My work (which you can read at X,Y,Z) may lead me to develop technology that might lead to teleportation. For example... [X,Y,Z]"
rather than someone who says
"I am interested in developing teleportation. I think I'll go study physics."

Studying science is great and always to be encouraged, and whatever enthuses someone to go out and get a degree is wonderful.
But it doesn't lend any validity to your knowledge of or ability to create currently non-existent technologies just because that dream inspired you to study science.

Besides my research ideas are very interesting and encouraged, there is plenty of work being done in the rearrangement of physical structures with the use of light.

I would much, MUCH rather hear you talk about that (and how it might relate to the test) than yet another description of a non-independent unverified claim about another anecdotal reading of a person we don't know and can't check with.

What I refer to vibration will be supplied by radiation, light, electrical, magnetic, electromagnetic fields, and maybe other concepts as well.

That's rather poorly defined. It's like coming up with a vibrational theory that refers to light and sound. Just because they share one aspect (some form of vibration or oscillation) doesn't mean they are comparable concepts.
Are you including anything imaginable that in some way pulses, oscillates, vibrates or alters state rhythmically?
All your descriptions are far too vague to be of any use scientifically.
As I said above, don't worry about going into high level detail with us. Certainly some on these boards will be able to keep up with extremely advanced levels of physics.

If your theory and understanding is literally no more developed than
"I am interested in vibrational energy in general and think it might lead to other scientific things but cannot elaborate beyond that"
then please say so as it would prevent us wasting any more time discussing that aspect.

If you genuinely have no understanding of the mechanism behind your claimed ability then would it not make sense to stop all reference to the mechanism? Just detail what the ability can and can't do.
The first step is to clarify if it really exists. If it does then many people will come up theories of mechanisms. Specialists in relevant fields.
If you are implying an ability to detect vibrations of subatomic particles then that would affect how we understand a huge variety of scientific disciplines.

All of these can be constructed to contain structured variations that yield complex effects in the matter with which they interact.

This is a rather vague sentence. Are you saying that the different wave interactions of different vibrational concepts can interact in... er... ways?
So anything that can in any way be interpreted as vibration (light, sound, radiation, magnetic fields, electromagnetic fields, and general other concepts) can affect other things in a way which is complex?
Again that is too vague and generic to be helpful as clarification.

We know things affect other things in complex ways - it is detailed specifics we are enquiring about.

I think chemistry will give me a fundamental foundation for my understanding of what tissue is composed of, and the interaction between light and matter on the quantum physics level which is where some of it takes place.

You think chemistry is the best basis for learning how light will affect subatomic particles of matter at a quantum level? I really do not understand why.

I will then complement this understanding by studying Histology (the study of human tissues) on the graduate level.
I won't deny that my research ideas in science come from the perceptions I have, however I will apply a pure scientific approach to these ideas.

Imagination is an important start point to scientific theories (especially ones that create entirely new technologies or world views) but my difficulty is in understanding where any of your 'research ideas' are grounded in specific theories or directions. It seems so unfocused.
All you ever refer to is 'vibration' without any further clarification (other than a list of concepts which might in some way involve 'vibration').

For example can you describe an experiment that you would conduct to demonstrate (or at least investigate) your direction of research?
I am really trying to get a handle on this.

Much of the science and technology that will be applied to my research is available and established (even if without depth), but I believe I will attempt to introduce new concepts, such as vibrational information, light structures, etc, and of course in a manner that is pure and acceptable science. [.quote]
Can you describe an experiment you would carry out that would be relevant?
Or at least an experiment that has been done in the area of technology that will be applied to your research and how it would be applied.

In that case take what I say to you about my feelings about the perceptions as my honest attempt of truth and do not argue with what I have said, trying to get a different answer from me or making me admit to something else. No progress comes from that, just wasted thread-space.

I reiterate my request for proper testing. Only that will alter my opinions about your feelings and descritons of them. I could pretend to believe your statements about how you feel about your ability and how others have reacted to it, but there wouldn't be much point in that.

Very good, I'm glad we have you here.
And I will not change my opinion that to me, the perceptions are a normal part of how I perceive, just like vision and hearing.

However I do understand that my perceptions are not normal to others, who do not have them. I think we are both right.
All I can say is that I do my best to be as honest as I can.
Well I understand if that is what you are doing. I hope you can all see that so far I have shown no reasons for having poor credibility. Of course my claim is unconventional, however I am totally sincere in the perceptions I have. Also every aspect of my personal life that has been brought up here, such as my educational background, has all been thoroughly scrutinized by everyone and I think nothing has come up to give reason to seriously doubt my sincerety.

On the whole, no, except the resistence to certain types of test and the continuing non-occurrence of proper testing.
Don't just blame IIG, find another group. This is your claim, you need to make the testing happen.
If I believed I had the ability you believe you have I would be harassing the biology and physics department of my and other universities. I would be contacting the media. I would have contacted several skeptical organisations. I would be open to try all my different claimed abilities.
In short, I would have had some proper testing done by now.

Also I would spend all my time trying to find out more about this ability which, by your own statements, you believe could generate a whole new field of technology and medical treatment.
But instead you decide to spend more time... ghosthunting?

You want to distinguish yourself as different from other claimants but you continually fall into almost cliched claimant behaviour. A wide range of paranormal involvement is fairly typical of the genre.
Your failure to concentrate on this incredible ability is, I have to be honest, harming your credibility.

If you encountered someone who claimed they could sometimes predict the future and avert disasters, and they had ways of studying this ability, but, instead of investigating this ability they went hunting for the Loch ness Monster, how would you perceive the credibility of that claimant?

The perceptions are real in the sense that I see and feel them, that is what I have meant. As to what their origin is, whether they are "real" as being part of our real, mutual world, or whether they are totally subjective to me, does not change the fact that the perceptions remain and are "real" to me in the sense that I perceive them. I hope this clarifies the issue.

Yes it does, thank you.
I don't think anyone should be in doubt that you have clearly expressed openness to the possibility of the perceptions being "subjective" as opposed to "being part of our real, mutual world" (I think that is a nice and way of putting it).
You have expressed that very clearly and, in my opinion, unequivocally.
Hopefully we can all agree on that point now.

 

[biomorph]

The perceptions are real in the sense that I see and feel them, that is what I have meant. As to what their origin is, whether they are "real" as being part of our real, mutual world, or whether they are totally subjective to me, does not change the fact that the perceptions remain and are "real" to me in the sense that I perceive them. I hope this clarifies the issue.

Not at all.

I can't quite get a grip on what you mean by "perceptions".

Just don't seem to have much clarity in my mind about what that actually might be.

If anything I'm now more confused than ever......

Is there any difference between that which you are claiming and this?

thefreedictionary.com/schizophrenia
schiz·o·phre·ni·a (skts-frn-, -frn-)
n.
1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.

Some results would be nice too, at some point..

Not sure I see the point of the "other" modded thread. I suppose she needs to somewhere to retreat to when no evidence turns up.

I'll wait and see what happens.....

Sorry, that was a bit of a derail....................

 

[Ashles]

Old man:
When the perceptions come from health information that is more severe, the information is often so strong and clear that it is hard to ignore. I detect something in persons every day, even though not necessarily a health problem. And other than the information that comes to me on its own, I can choose to make the conscious effort to take a look, to do a head-to-toe reading but only do so rarely.

Wait a minute. Now I am confused again.

You state here

I can choose to make the conscious effort to take a look, to do a head-to-toe reading but only do so rarely

To clarify:
Can you do that at will?
Can you perform a head-to-toe reading whenever you like?
What is the accuracy of such readings?

(Please note I am not asking how often you choose to do this. I am also not asking about details of instances when the information comes on its own - I am only asking about the times when you consciously choose to analyse somebody.)

 

[Ashles]

I can't quite get a grip on what you mean by "perceptions".
Just don't seem to have much clarity in my mind about what that actually might be.
If anything I'm now more confused than ever......

I struggled with that too. After some direct questions I feel I have got a clear answer from Anita on that. I think it may have been a language error.

In my opinion she has stated clearly that by 'perceptions' she is referring to the sensations she is experiencing (without any implication attached to cause).
She has, as far as I can understand, clarified that the tests are indeed inntended to ascertain whether the sensations she experiences are actually related to real-world external information (such as genuine medical information of another person) or whether the sensations exist only within her perceptual system/imagination and are not yielding real external information.
Which seems fair enough.

 

[Old man]

Originally Posted by Old man
You absolutely do not “need to consult legal council” to look at people in a public place! Do you really think I’d be in ‘legal trouble’ if I posted that I went to the mall yesterday and saw seventy five people, three of whom I thought were blind, and eight that I’m sure had had amputations of various and sundry limbs? Come on, get a little tighter grip on reality, girl! You ARE “making excuses”, AND deliberately misunderstanding what I’m suggesting you do!

What you are suggesting sounds to me more like what I would call a survey, rather than the study I am planning. You suggest that I collect information about what types of ailments I detect and how often I detect them relative to the number of people I read, but without the opportunity of checking with the persons in whom I have sensed the health information what the accuracy would be.

Bingo!

Originally Posted by Old man
And here, you say you’ve been self-testing, and you STILL won’t tell us what you can do!

Working on it, planning it, not intentionally postponing it.

People have been begging you for a list of what you think you can detect! That’s what you’re postponing!

Originally Posted by Diogenes
Do tell ? And why do you think that is ?
The violin player refuses to play ..

I absolutely do not refuse to demonstrate the alleged ability or to perform in a test. I have done what I thought a paranormal challenge applicant was to do, which ended up being "wait, and wait, and wait". I am now taking initiative toward a study that I plan on my own. It's a lot of work! Meanwhile I have college to worry about, and all else!

And a ‘survey’ as you would chose to call it, would be a lot less work, and, at least, give the impression that you’re serious about defining your power.

Is there any difference between that which you are claiming and this?

Quote:
thefreedictionary.com/schizophrenia
schiz·o·phre·ni·a (skts-frn-, -frn-)
n.
1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.

Pick me! Pick me! I can answer this one!!11!

Anita, in the moderated thread, you made bold claims about detecting dental problems. A test of this would be very easy to set up.

Upthread, you said that any of us would be convinced of your powers if we’d just spend two weeks with you. Yet, in the last month (at least) you’ve done nothing to help establish your claim. If I’d spent, say, Dec. 10 through Dec. 23 with you, what, exactly, would I have seen that would have ‘convinced’ me?

 

[Moochie]

<snip>
Studying science is great and always to be encouraged, and whatever enthuses someone to go out and get a degree is wonderful.
But it doesn't lend any validity to your knowledge of or ability to create currently non-existent technologies just because that dream inspired you to study science.


I would much, MUCH rather hear you talk about that (and how it might relate to the test) than yet another description of a non-independent unverified claim about another anecdotal reading of a person we don't know and can't check with.

Here are a couple of young women whose research might actually lead to something of enormous benefit to humans. No "special abilities" here, just the application of real knowledge to real problems.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/t...in-cancer-riddle-discovery-20081227-75xk.html


M.

 

[Ashles]

Here are a couple of young women whose research might actually lead to something of enormous benefit to humans. No "special abilities" here, just the application of real knowledge to real problems.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/t...in-cancer-riddle-discovery-20081227-75xk.html

Now that is inspirational.

 

[JWideman]

JWideman:
No. I am much more specific than that. If your example here would occur it would count as a miss.

Well, it did occur, and you did count it as a hit. If this is an indication of a pattern of behavior for you, then your accuracy rate is much closer to 0% than 100%.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Here are a couple of young women whose research might actually lead to something of enormous benefit to humans. No "special abilities" here, just the application of real knowledge to real problems.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/t...in-cancer-riddle-discovery-20081227-75xk.html


M.

This is exciting news indeed! Some cancer research institution somewhere should recruit BOTH of them!

 

[desertgal]

Is there any difference between that which you are claiming and this?

Quote:
thefreedictionary.com/schizophrenia
schiz·o·phre·ni·a (skts-frn-, -frn-)
n.
1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.

I'll take "Calling It Closer To The Truth" for $500, Alex.

 

[calebprime]

Because Vision From Feeling obviously isn't schizophrenic,

I think we should avoid that.

Otherwise, we're using it as an insult, which is in poor taste.

(You may think her stance has problems, and these problems match some dictionary definition of schizophrenia, but the fit is at best superficial, and at worst completely wrong)

 

[desertgal]

Because Vision From Feeling obviously isn't schizophrenic,

I think we should avoid that.

Otherwise, we're using it as an insult, which is in poor taste.

(You may think her stance has problems, and these problems match some dictionary definition of schizophrenia, but the fit is at best superficial, and at worst completely wrong)

Well, I disagree that she "obviously" isn't schizophrenic - since none of us know her, we can't make that call either way. There are some indications that she has lost touch with reality, and is delusional to some degree.

But, fair enough. I was being facetious, and I apologize, Anita.

 

[calebprime]

You'd see some tangentiality, some klanging, some inappropriate silliness, some overly-concrete thinking, if she was a schizophrenic in high gear,

and, if she were medicated, or a chronic schizophrenic, you wouldn't see the long, carefully-worded replies, you'd see a dull, flatter quality,

almost by definition, but certainly by "feel."

(I grew up with a schizophrenic sister, and have read many books on the subject as well. I'm aware that there's a completely different "flavor" of schizophrenia when it's paranoid schizophrenia, but that's for all intents and purposes a different illness, and there's no sign of that, either. )

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Edited by chillzero: 

This post moved from other thread, as it was off topic there. VfF, please do not derail other threads with your own challenge, which already has this thread, and your interview thread for you to use.

9 out of 16 statements on the Forer effect applied to me, which is 56% and far from a passing score.

THANK YOU for bringing up this topic, you see I am a psychic claimant and am planning to do a study to gain more experience with my possible psychic medical diagnose, to gather a better understanding of it in order to apply the paranormal claim from its everyday experience to a test setting environment.

The study is done before a test, and is not a test itself, although depending on results, it can conclude "no ESP ability" and terminate the investigation, but can not conclude "ESP ability" if results seem to indicate good accuracy because the entire study is not done under proper test conditions.

One of the things I consider trying in the study is preparing cards with health descriptions for each out of a number of people. We would have to ensure that the cards contain no unintended hints that would make the person relate to the right card, such as in a very clear but unlikely example, "you have brown hair". The cards should only list health information that is considered to not be detectable by ordinary perception. Several test conditions will be tested, such as using a full-body screen. Each person would see a number of cards and choose the one that best fits with their health. This is not what I expect the test format to be, because I identify many problems with this type of test, however with the study I want to try different things.

Could we discuss the drawbacks with this type of tests? Is there a way to design this type of test in a way that is acceptable for a test protocol?

 

[desertgal]

You'd see some tangentiality, some klanging, some inappropriate silliness, some overly-concrete thinking, if she was a schizophrenic in high gear,

and, if she were medicated, or a chronic schizophrenic, you wouldn't see the long, carefully-worded replies, you'd see a dull, flatter quality,

almost by definition, but certainly by "feel."

(I grew up with a schizophrenic sister, and have read many books on the subject as well. I'm aware that there's a completely different "flavor" of schizophrenia when it's paranoid schizophrenia, but that's for all intents and purposes a different illness, and there's no sign of that, either. )

Fair enough. Not schizophrenia or paranoid schizophrenia.

Schizotypal disorder, possibly?

DSM IV Definition: "A pervasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by acute discomfort with, and reduced capacity for, close relationships as well as by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Ideas of reference (excluding delusions of reference)
2. Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, or "sixth sense"; in children and adolescents, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)
3. Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions
4. Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped)
5. Suspiciousness or paranoid ideation
6. Inappropriate or constricted affect
7. Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar
8. Lack of close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
9. Social anxiety that tends to be associated with paranoid fears rather than negative judgments about self

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Can we please stop the amateur online diagnoses? I really don't think it is appropriate.

 

[Old man]

Because Vision From Feeling obviously isn't schizophrenic,

I think we should avoid that.

Otherwise, we're using it as an insult, which is in poor taste.

(You may think her stance has problems, and these problems match some dictionary definition of schizophrenia, but the fit is at best superficial, and at worst completely wrong)

And I was responding to the question - "Is there any difference between that which you are claiming and this?" posed by biomorph.

Really, people try to read too much into what should be seen as joking behavior.

But, I do agree with you, and will try to refrain from making jokes that cut too close to the bone.

 

[desertgal]

Can we please stop the amateur online diagnoses? I really don't think it is appropriate.

Offering amateur medical diagnoses based on "seeing" someone's innards-I'd say that's inappropriate, too.

But, okay, point taken, I'll stop there.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Offering amateur medical diagnoses based on "seeing" someone's innards-I'd say that's inappropriate, too.

We are still waiting for that to happen .. We will deem it inappropriate when it does..

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 22:

Diogenes:

How good is a gas leak detector that fails to detect most leaks ?

A Geiger counter that doesn't detect some radiation ?

You claim to have superior resolution to an MRI .. That would be easy to verify, yet you refuse to actually be tested for such
an ability under controlled conditions. That makes you a liar .

The question is, "do I have ESP?", not "do I have very good ESP?". Bad ESP is also ESP. I have no idea as to how many health conditions I would not detect on a test. I have merely stated this disclaimer in case I do not detect all health conditions that were considered to occur. Many health conditions occur to different extents, possibly having a signature to different extents.

I have never refused to have a test. I have contacted the IIG West a year and a half ago and they have not set up a test for me yet although I have been very cooperative and agreed to all of their conditions so far. I've contacted the local skeptics group about arranging a test and they told me we need better understanding of what test conditions I can agree to, so I am now planning a study. I am working as fast as I can. I am not a liar.

What you claim is a super ability.. One that you clearly don't have.

One that I clearly don't have? When I look at people I perceive images of tissues and health, which when I describe them to the persons they report good accuracy. That is all we have at this point, and none of that has indicated no ability. If something indicated no ability I could terminate this investigation.

That is why we will never see the results of a controlled test; or if we do, we will be hearing rationalized excuses from you, about why you failed.

I can not set up a test all on my own, because as a claimant if I did my involvement and reliability would be heavily questioned. I am arranging a study which will involve two skeptics, and the results of the study will be documented by them and made official. I will not make excuses, I am rational about what things really mean. Of course I could speculate about why I failed, and that is done on the study where we try to establish what test conditions to use. Once I have agreed to test conditions, after that I can not make any excuses based on those test conditions as to why I fail a test. For instance if I agree to having a full-body screen on a test, then if I fail a test that uses a full-body screen I can not make any excuses about why a full-body screen did not work in my favor. Why don't you wait for me to make excuses and to actually exhibit some of this behavior that you criticize me for, before actually criticizing me for it?

desertgal:

No, not incorrect. My point was that you always intended for members here to take those anecdotes as evidence. Your claim that you never expected anyone here to believe them is pure ********. That was exactly your expectation. You can twist words as much you want, Anita. In plain English, it always comes back to the same thing - you came here with the expectation that people here would accept your anecdotes as evidence. How many more times would you like me to say that?

Well I don't want you to have to say that again. I will however state as many times as is necessary, that I do not expect the anecdotes to be taken as evidence. The purpose of the observations page www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html was for me to document examples of what perceptions I have and under what conditions. They were never intended to be as evidence. What they are are examples. For instance, the fact that I claim to have detected vasectomy teaches us that vasectomy is probably a good candidate to include on a test. The anecdotes surve to further clarify the specifics of my claim. That's all.

And no, I do not dispense medical information based on these perceptions to people. I only do this with friends and family.

Wrong. I mean, how many times do I have to point this out, Anita? Your very own words contradict that statement.

Again I wasn't being clear enough, however I was not lying about anything. What I meant was that so far I have only attempted psychic medical diagnose on friends and family. I admit that I have begun to show interest in trying psychic medical diagnose on strangers, and that is because it is the natural next step to gain more understanding into the perceptions as well as to try this in situations that are more reliable. It is always better to have volunteers that I have not met before, than to do this with family and friends who I have some prior knowledge of. However still I have never attempted psychic medical diagnose on persons other than friends and family. I detect plenty of medical information in all persons, but only with friends and family have I decided to check for accuracy, because I realize the responsibility involved with this type of information. The upcoming study should give me opportunity to try this with volunteers I have not met before.

When I said;

"Dec 6 08: I used this ability on a new person who I had just met that day and I had received absolutely no information about his health condition..."

This person was a new friend I had just met. We are still friends and became good friends. So it is still within my statement that I've only done this with friends and family. I apologize for not having been clear enough and I see where this confusion comes from.

"Dec 3 08: I decided to confide in a person I recently met that I have an ability of perceiving and describing health information and asked if I could try this with him.

This is also a new friend I met. These are not strangers who would not become part of my life. Sorry about not having been clear enough. It is difficult to be exhaustive in details in every case when I say something.

And, it doesn't matter WHO you dispense medical information to. It's irresponsible that you do it at all. Period.

I agree with that. However I am interested in finding out what the source, and actual accuracy, of my medical perceptions are. Medical information will be dispensed with a thorough disclaimer and only on a study or on a test. A lot of scientific investigation involves practices that are not going to be done outside of laboratory.

When I said;

What I meant was that I do not publicly do this and am not tempted to...

I have expressed interest in doing this with people, however I am reluctant to do so.

desertgal said;

Yeah, those two sentences don't contradict each other at all.

Both express that I am curious about having more experience with the perceptions, and to find out what the accuracy really is, and in both I also express my concern with the moral issues involved.

If you had a strong sense of responsibility, you would have never and would not dispense medical information, based on this alleged ability, to anyone. Period.

I am far too interested in investigating a possible case of ESP, or a possible case the use of an interesting skill in reading information that is usually not accessible or interpreted, to not conduct this investigation. I believe that the study and tests can be conducted properly without inflicting harm to the volunteers. I for instance am rational enough that if I were asked to participate in a study or a test of possible extrasensory perception in psychic medical diagnose, and I would be given a disclaimer that I sign to have understood, that states among other things that the information presented is not to be taken as truth and is to be disregarded by me as the participant, with a reminder that only information that was in my own prior knowledge or is derived by conventional medicine is to be taken as truth, I could participate in the study or the test and after the test I would leave unharmed.

There are ways to avoid the possible harm for volunteers. Volunteers can for instance be presented with many health descriptions or health ailments and be told that according to the psychic, most of them or all of them do not apply to them, and that they are to pick the ones that they already came to the test believing that they have, or having medical documentation that they have. We can also use information that is not disturbing to persons, such as whether a man has had a vasectomy or not. I believe there are ways to design a study and a test in ways that would not distress the volunteering participants.

Give me some credit here, I bet a lot of people who would suddenly realize that they seem to perceive accurate health descriptions would right away start to offer their services to people and for a fee. I have shown no such interest and I do my best to be responsible in my investigation.

Oh, let me guess. You are gonna call it the Winston Salem Paranormal Society, right?

I've joined the Winston Salem Paranormal Society, but I'm thinking of starting my own smaller group for our unique form of investigations.

Couldn't care less about your "ghost experiences", Anita. I quoted them to point out how deeply delusional you actually are, even if you are the only one here who can't see that.

Just recently I spoke with the spirit of a friend's father and was able to describe with perfect accuracy loads of details of their life together that I had no prior knowledge of. I can speak with them and get names, years, and other information that can be checked against facts. You may be skeptical, but for you to conclude without any evidence against this occurrence that I'd be delusional is starting to give me a negative impression of your skills in inquiry. Even in my childhood I was able to accurately describe crime scenes based on how I see them act out when I'm at those sites. Besides due to the complications in actually proving hauntings, me and my group will conduct investigations in the purpose of providing entertainment and some insight into historical sites and into the lives of people from the past.

Yeah, because that's what everyone here is looking for. How your paranormal society is going.

We have our next meeting January 26. By then I hope to have gotten started with my study, in which two of the members will participate.

More contradictions. You "don't dispense medical information to people", but you do "attempt psychic medical diagnose...in the comfort and safety of your own home, with people and in situations where no one can get hurt?"

Yeah. Right, Anita. Whatever you say.

I guess I wasn't being clear enough again. What I meant was that I do not publicly offer this "service" to people, and I do not tell people to take my information seriously. What I tell friends when I do this, is that I want to try psychic medical diagnose, and that they are not to take any of it as truth just in case I'd be wrong, and that they must state my accuracy as reliably as they can. I do not openly offer psychic medical diagnose.

Oh, that's right. You don't offer contradictions - it everyone else's misinterpretation. The battle cry of woo claimants everywhere.

There are a lot of quick assumptions made here on this Forum, and I do admit that often it is because I wasn't exhaustively clear on many points, but in many cases it is not reasonable for me to do so. I am trying to explain things as clearly as I can, but I realize that that is often not good enough. I don't mind if you bring up apparent contradictions, because that way I have a chance of explaining myself, so thanks.

UncaYimmy has offered you a great opportunity to avoid being misinterpreted with the interview thread. It would certainly help you clarify your claim. Perhaps you should take it, and avoid the morass of alleged misunderstanding this thread has become.

I will participate in both threads, and I will stay in this thread because I will be posting new results here as soon as they become available. I want us to discuss the outcome of the study soon, because as the claimant I can not allow myself to analyze and conclude on the study all on my own, because no matter how well I'd intend to do that I am the claimant and one can not study oneself.

In other words, quit debating minutiae and get down to your claim itself.

Sorry, if someone says things about me that aren't true, I respond. That's just what I am.

Pup:

(...) For some people, paranormal claims are like religion: they're taught not to confront someone's paranormal beliefs anymore than they'd suggest a double-blind study to the neighbor who offered to pray for their sick relative.

I picture that Anita's friends probably have similar reactions.

I do admit that the reliability of the accounts of accuracy from persons in the past must be questionable, but there have also been cases where my accuracy has been confirmed by other means, none of which is evidence but is what compels me toward a test. I understand what you wrote and have listened to it carefully, and can say that that is why I look forward to involving skeptics in future experiences with the perceptions. The upcoming study and the tests will try to eliminate the risk of obtaining false accuracy from when a person might be inclined to agree with me. Good point, thank you.

By the way I just asked my boyfriend whether he feels excited or whether he feels it is normal when I accurately describe his health and how he is feeling, and he said that he feels excited about it. So I may be wrong. I think we just had different definitions of excited. To me, excited would be jumping up and down and being beyond oneself excited. They just don't quite express excitement, in the physical sense of the word. I still feel that they are used to it in either case.

desertgal:

What we have disagreed with is Anita's claim that her friends and family (and a small town in Sweden) apparently believe in her ability 100%, come to her often for psychic medical diagnose...and yet are indifferent to the fact that she has this ability. You must admit, THAT point of view is pretty nonsensical.

Goodness you people try to read between and underneath and above the lines and put all kind of nonsense there that just isn't true and that I don't think I even implied. Of course what you here said is pretty nonsensical, because half of it isn't true! My friends and family are inclined toward believing in the ability because of the fact that I have expressed apparent accuracy. (I say "apparent" to account for the fact that in some cases there is no way for me to conclude that a person was not gullible to end up agreeing with me.) Townspeople have not experienced my ability at all. No one comes to me for psychic medical diagnose, not even friends and family. That has never happened, with the only exception that some people here on the Forum have offered to participate in study and tests. Your false conclusions are sometimes nonsensical, I admit to that.

Jeff Corey:

What happened to that discussion with Unca Jimmy? He asked some questions two days ago on that special thread (way down the page) and you are wasting time responding here?

Christmas happened. I am sorry if you think that I take on my pile of work in the wrong order of sequence. I have responded to the private thread yesterday.

desertgal:

Well, in Anita's case, it's an easy enough question to answer. She hasn't been here many years, so she would, likely, still have an accent. There are two people who post here who have met her personally. They could certainly say one way or the other.

I have offered to give any of you my phone number if you PM me, so that you can hear whether I have a Swedish accent or not. Care to take me up on the challenge?

Moochie:

You're right, of course. Not that it's a big issue. The only issue, really, is that this person submit to a proper test of the claimed "ability." With every further post from this person my BS meter nudges further into the red. That last post positively made me laugh out loud.

Oh Moochie! The reason I keep posting a lot of nonsense is because I am responding to nonsense! (Accusations and misunderstandings.) If we all could focus on the claim itself, rather than if I really came from Sweden or not (which is totally irrelevant to my paranormal claim) we would make far more progress and have a much more enjoyable thread. I feel sorry for the people coming in to read this thread because any bits of real progress are buried amidst nonsense.

desertgal:

The problem, I think, is this: While Anita pays lip service to the suggestion that her alleged ability is merely imagination/hallucinations/delusions, if a test should indicate that, she isn't going to believe it. So, all the discussion about protocols and tests and "studies" is fruitless. She "sees" what she "sees".

The perceptions will continue no matter what tests conclude about the source and actual accuracy of the perceptions. The word "perceptions" was discussed for many pages between Ashles and me, and we agreed that "perceptions" does not imply about the actual accuracy or origin of the perceptions. I will definitely accept a test result that proves no ESP ability. My objective is to find out the source and accuracy of the perceptions, and I am not in favor of one outcome over another, because if I were that would put me at risk of becoming attached to something I will not receive and I would end up getting disappointed and hurt. So I remain open to either possibility.

He "saw" what he "saw". He may have, like Anita, paid lip service to it being an hallucination, but he still would have continued to believe that what his mind told him was true. I see the same thing happening here. It's one of the reasons the goalposts keep moving, and why she fails to look at her perceptions objectively. Anita is clinging to an unwillingness to believe that her mind might be playing tricks on her.

I understand that the origin and actual accuracy of the medical perceptions has not been established, and I realize that I may come to find out that they are just the automatic play of a creative imagination of my mind, and I would be very happy with that conclusion as well. My perceptions do not disturb my life, thoughts, or functioning. I do not project my perceptions into the physical world, I do however intend to investigate them because of the apparent accuracy.

Moochie:

Anita is clinging to an unwillingness to believe that her mind might be playing tricks on her.

That opens up a rather unfortunate possibility, which I sincerely hope isn't the case.

I don't think I am unwilling to accept that I do not have ESP, or that the perceptions would not be based on actual information from the real world. I could live with the perceptions and images even if they were just creative imagination, because they do not interfere with me or my life, they are not overwhelming, or confusing, or disturbing. Well, they were disturbing in the very beginning, because I like many other people was uncomfortable with images of "blood" and "intestines" but over the years I've come to truly appreciate the human body and can't wait to study Histology on the graduate level. As far as I can describe at this point, I feel fully prepared to accept that I do not have an extrasensory ability. Of course we will only know once that day comes.

desertgal:

In fairness, I can think of a lot of people I know who wouldn't be willing to believe their mind might be playing tricks on them.

The fact that I perceive medical information, as visual images and also as relating to feeling and understanding, are not disturbing to me and I would not define them as delusions. If for instance they are a form of expression of synesthesia, it is not defined as something disruptive to a person's life, but more of a creative mind that gives impressions and association. The perceptions themselves are not linked to conclusions or belief, although are to understanding. Rather than immediately believe in the reality of the perceptions, I consider them merely as images and am interested in confirming their accuracy rationally.

I don't know if Anita is stark raving bonkers. Given all her claims, and how far she has taken them, though, I do think she's lost touch with reality. I doubt she will admit that, either.

I see and feel medical information, which when I describe to persons seems to be accurate. I am therefore interested in finding out the source and actual accuracy of these perceptions. I consider this to be a scientific inquiry and do not think that I've lost touch with reality by doing this.

Jeff Corey:

Now it's about 2300 words here and you still haven't answered UncaYimmy.
I don't think you are as crazy as some other people here do, I have worked with real ******** crazy people. I think you are merely a liar.

Patience! It's been Christmas! And I've replied now. It took me two hours, I sat up from midnight until two a.m., knowing that if I don't post now I'll never hear the end of it. So there. By the way I am not a liar. Everything I have said represents the truth as best as I can account for it. Everything I've said has been thoroughly scrutinized by these people, and have we come across a single case of me lying? I don't think so.

desertgal:

They most certainly are not "accurate representations". You don't "document" anything. You simply repeatedly claim that you "envisioned" this or that medical ailment and that your "perception" was "accurate". You provide absolutely no background information which might indicate that your anecdotes are nothing but fantasy.

Although the anecdotes lack proper documentation they are accurate representations. In each case as far as I have been able to at each time, the accuracy was not falsified. I was asked by Forum members to provide examples of the perceptions that I have, and that is what the observations page is. You don't have to read it if it bothers you. All they are, are examples. I'm sorry if I didn't have a team of scientists with me and proper testing procedures available when I was out and met with new friends.

She won't answer UncaYimmy. His questions require specific answers, with no wiggle room. She wouldn't want to tie herself down to anything she can't wall o'text herself out of.

!!! I've replied!!! I think I've exposed you as someone who just keeps stating things that aren't true. I guess I'll have to start disregarding your comments soon. You're not participating in a true skeptics manner. There is usually no evidence or reason behind your statements, and many are expressed, in my opinion, in a slightly negative manner.

This whole thing has gone beyond ridiculous. You are a fraud, Anita. Whether you realize it or not, you are a fraud. Nobody has the type of vision you describe. Not you, not anyone. It is absurd to even suggest that you do. Your "perceptions" are nothing more than hallucinations conjured up by a mind that lost touch with reality long ago. (...)

I think what we are all frustrated by is the time it takes to get progress. Setting up a study or a test of this sort of claim takes time and work, and involves people other than just me. I am working on it. And we don't know whether I have ESP or not, all I know is the apparent accuracy of the medical perceptions and I think I have every right to engage in a scientific investigation into these perceptions, regardless of what the conclusion will be. If this bothers you you don't have to participate, not that I am throwing you out because I'm not.

TheSkepticCanuck:

If her claims were real and verifiable, she'd be rich by the new year, from the sale of the movie and television rights alone! The CW network would be all over that potential show! Think House MD meets Ghost Whisperer meets Dr. Doolittle. The storylines would be incredible!

Wonderful! Unfortunately setting up studies and tests takes time. This is not a straightforward claim like many others would be, but I'm working on it and expect to conduct the study early in 2009.

Akhenaten:

Clearly, what's needed is a study of the tests carried out so far, including a survey of the trials which have been conducted. Is there any way to work in an analysis?

No tests have been done on my claim of psychic medical diagnose in live persons. Analysis of the results will be possible for the study and tests that are up ahead.