Vision From Feeling

[Uncayimmy]

With paranormal experiences. All I believe is that I have medical perceptions. I do not believe to know where the perceptions come from or their actual accuracy, and that is what the test is for.

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

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

I am not making it sound like you are a bad scientist. I am saying that you are not a scientist. You are a college student who believes she has had paranormal experiences.

Scientist: One whose activities make use of the scientific method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A scientist may be involved in original research, or make use of the results of the research of others.

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

So, from this point forward perhaps I should substitute for "ESP" something like "a mind control advice implanted by your mother, who is really an Illuminati agent." Thus, your paragraph could be rewritten as follows:

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

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

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

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Femke:

However, and please do not feel attacked, there is something that was asked before and you have as far as I know not answered:

You are a third year student in two Science subjects, and yet you do not seem to have had any training in statistics or the scientific method.
This puzzles me. In my first year in college (I am a biologist) we had courses in History of Science and Filosophy of Science, as well as Statistical Analysis. (Maybe more, but it has been a while. ) These courses taught us to distinguish between apparent correlations and statistical correlations, and showed basically how science works. And they were compulsory.

How come you do not seem to apply these basic subjects to your protocols? You must have gotten excellent grades on them, judging by your average.

I did answer this question already. I answer all questions.

From page 6 and post #217,

I don't have to study statistics to get my degrees although it is highly recommended as an elective. I will probably catch up on statistics on the Masters level later on. Doing two B.S. and a minor means I have to choose away a few good courses that would strengthen either one. I take my studies seriously though and will catch up on courses later on and take several useful electives, including many math electives. But at this point I am grateful to have others on this Forum, such as Ocelot and Beth, to do the statistical analysis as they have. I do apply statistical analysis in college but not of the form as is done here. This is not a chemistry experiment.

And from page 19 and post #742,

Our schools are simply different, that's all. Statistics is a math elective, and I have chosen Calculus and Differential Equations instead.

and from page 14 and post #555,

I will study much more quantum physics than statistics, that is simply how my degrees are composed. Statistics is a math elective, and I've chosen Calculus 4 in its place.

In what way am I not applying science to this investigation? As long as it isn't based on impatience again, I'd be happy to know. Besides I am here to get help in test protocol design, that's what you guys are good at. And trust me, it's a really different experience being both the scientist and that which is being studied! It changes everything! So I appreciate the assistance, which shows up in amidst a sea of insults and false accusations about irrelevant topics regarding my person, not that you are responsible for that since I consider you one of the most excellent posters on this thread.

 

[Ashles]

I think I'll just keep asking this:

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

You have specifically said:

Quote:
I can do vibrational algebra to calculate theoretical effects in resultant vibration which translates back into real world physical things.

This is one thing you can do here on the forum.

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

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

 

[Ashles]

I don't have to study statistics to get my degrees although it is highly recommended as an elective.

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

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Old man:

What about fiddler crabs, then, or flounder? Would you see them as ‘abnormal’? You’ve made repeated claims that you almost invariably detect only ‘abnormalities’.

Good question. A few years ago, a boy told us that he was born with his internal organs inverted, left and right side. I looked closely but I couldn't detect it, and I also couldn't detect otherwise - that he'd actually have the organs in the normal way. Health problems are what usually catch my attention, and natural asymmetry that is not associated with a health problem is assumably not as easily detected as a health problem is. I have not contradicted myself, I just explained that many health problems are in fact asymmetry. But I did not state that all asymmetry are detectable or that all assymmetry are health problems. And unless my skills of perception have become stronger since then with regard to inverted organs I would still not be able to detect asymmetry for the sake of asymmetry alone.

Anita, we’re just a bunch of nerds/geeks who don’t have real lives, and can’t understand people who do!

Well I take pride in being a nerd/geek too and I do spend a lot of time here too. I just thought I'd take a few days off for Christmas. I'm sorry... it won't happen again.

Could it be that the stress of impending failure is causing those symptoms [of headache and nausea on chemical identification tests]?

No, because I do very well. Headache and nausea happen first, then the accuracy begins to decrease, not that I'm necessarily blaming it on these symptoms, just noticing a correlation, that's all.

But, have you done ANY checking ON YOUR OWN?

I did a survey yesterday but did not happen to come across any perceptions of vasectomy or breast implants. The details of the survey will be posted eventually.

“I detect plenty of medical information in all persons…”
“I do not detect plenty of those (medical information) in all persons…”
If your second statement is true, then does it not follow that the first is, at best, an exaggeration?

I don't understand the question. In what context did I say the second statement?

Saying that you were “absolutely correct” about the small intestine ‘diagnosis’ was an exaggeration.

True. Still I can not rule out that the small intestine was not associated with the cramp below the sternum. Not making excuses, just being open.

Anita, if I walked up to any middle-aged, slightly paunchy man, and said “Sometimes you have pain/discomfort just behind/below the sternum” I’d be right more times than I’d be wrong, and my ‘location’ would be ‘amazingly’ accurate. You did that ONE time.

Even if so, the point is that I have failed to falsify the paranormal claim, and all we conclude based on the anecdotes is to proceed toward a real test where none of this vagueness can take place. The fact that vagueness and cold reading can occur in everyday experience, does not mean that they did take place, and only a real test can reveal what the actual accuracy is when vagueness and cold reading can not happen.

RE: vasectomy. It’s the excuse you used that time.

I'm afraid I can't respond, because I don't understand the statement again.

Maybe. Are you willing to spend a few days in the lovely Finger Lakes region of New York?

Are you asking me out on a date? Of course I would. Set up a date... I mean test, and I'll be there.

Do you realize that deliberately ‘misunderstanding’ a legitimate, on-topic question in order to avoid answering it is also insulting? Or am I not a “real person”?

I never deliberately misunderstand questions. I really didn't. Even in this very post I've already
un-deliberately misunderstood two more of your posts again, and you're gonna get upset with me about that.

But you DO say it here, in this thread, ALL the time. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that we find it hard to believe that you don’t say the same thing in other situations?

It's one thing to suspect or to expect things of me, but to throw it at me as if you were totally convinced, and when it comes to negative accusations about me, then of course I try to clear away misunderstandings.

So, you do say “I'VE NEVER BEEN WRONG” to your ‘patients’, don’t you? Why can’t you see the above as contradictory?

I do say that "I've never been confirmed wrong in the past", but I don't say that "I'll never be wrong in the future and that I could thus be assumed to be correct at all times." That is how I can say "I'm never wrong" (in the past) and I can't say "I'm never wrong" (about the future). Sorry, my fault. Phew, I hope that explains it! Otherwise, I'll try again!

Personally, I think it’s irresponsible to NOT test “this super ability”. If we take DG’s position to the extreme, we’d never investigate any new diagnostic techniques, for fear of causing “anxiety and worry”.

Yes, but it is best to explore methods of testing it where no harm will come to participants, rather than to embark on a test that may cause harm without considering other options around that.

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

And that's what the observations page is all about.

You would think wrong; "vasectomy" and "heart bypass", especially in the context of what you have indicated above, are amigious.

Is that like, Spangolish for ‘friendly’?

I was thinking the same. I'm glad you said it first, not me!

…almost every time Anita writes a wall of text, I just throw my hands up and think, "that's it! I'm out of here." It just gets more and more ridiculous. But I relate far too much to this comic:

Yea, me too.

Alright guys, no offense, but Old man just posted a wall o'text too, post #980, and his was a reply to only one person: me. My wall o'texts are replies to many people all at once!

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
This thread is not over, stop bullying around this thread and twisting the intent of this thread! If you can't stay on topic then find yourself another thread where you can discuss all the non-relevant topics regarding me as a claimant.

No. All your claims fantasies are relevant to your credibility. Your credibility is relevant to all your claims fantasies.

This thread is about my paranormal investigation. The Ghost thread was about my ghost experiences. This one is not.

No. All your claims fantasies are relevant to your credibility.Your credibility is relevant to all your claims fantasies.

Opinions and expectations are fine, just remember that we haven't proven one way or the other yet.

No, YOU haven't proven one way or the other.

I see the people and events that took place and everything I have described has either been confirmed as accurate, or seems likely, and none has been proven as inaccurate, or seemed unlikely. And these are sites that today show no record of what happened.

More fantasies.

If you want to discuss this topic, please see the Ghost thread, but I won't be there since I'm busy working on my paranormal claim.

You didn't bring it up in the Ghost thread. You brought it up here. All your claims fantasies are relevant to your credibility. Your credibility is relevant to all your claims fantasies.

And then it takes me one second to see everything that happened, oh boy. Not to disrespect their work. It's just easier to actually see it.

More fantasies.

And once again desertgal makes an incorrect assumption. I have never solved crimes. I've described them. I never made that claim. You should be ashamed of yourself for making an incorrect assumption again and for throwing it at me! OF COURSE I'LL RESPOND TO THIS! YOU'RE LYING ABOUT ME! I DID NOT SAY IT! I DID NOT MEAN IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY IT! And the only one who is false here is YOU! It is your false fantasy that I claimed to have solved crimes! You've made a fool of yourself, again.

More fantasies.

I'm the one who has experienced these perceptions fantasies

So I appreciate the assistance, which shows up in amidst a sea of insults truths and false true accusations observations about irrelevant relevant topics regarding my person fantasies.

I think your false accusations, your strong belief in these false accusations, and your willingness to judge my character negatively on false accusations, is disgusting, distasteful, and really makes me quite angry.

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

 

[Ashles]

And trust me, it's a really different experience being both the scientist and that which is being studied!

As has already been explained you are not a scientist Anita. You are a college student doing a science degree. This does not make you a scientist any more than someone doing a film studies course is a Producer. Proper research will make you a 'scientist' and as we have seen you are a long way from that are the moment.
And at the moment you are not 'being studied' either.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

There are two vas deferentia in the normal male, so referring to "the vas deferens" is imprecise. Maybe you know there are two but don't know the plural form. Maybe you think there's only one, which is not an uncommon assumption by many people.

In the perception I had I clearly saw two of them, each with a gap of removed tissue. I haven't specified this in each case when I describe the event because I thought it was implied that there are two. Just like it is implied that vasectomies are done on men.

Not all vasectomies result in the vas deferentia being cut. There exists a technique in which a special clamp is used to effectively crimp off the vas to prevent the flow of sperm.

In my perception it was the case of incision and not a clamp. I can ask the person if he knows what procedure was applied.

In those vasectomies where the vas are cut, each is cut at least once. The two ends of the vas are heat sealed (cauterized), stitched, tied or clipped, before being returned to the scrotum. Some doctors remove a piece and some do not. Sometimes the piece that is cut was removed from the cauterized section. Sometimes small hemoclips remain in the scrotum.

Alright, thank you for your research into it.

So, if you are going to claim "vasectomy" you will have the additional burden of providing other important details. Vasectomies are relatively common (1:6 among men 35 and older). Specifying the existence of crimping, clamping, cauterization, and/or tying off will allow you to demonstrate a level of accuracy much better than you could with a simple yes/no about vasectomy based on a claim that a section is missing.

The details of the procedure need not necessarily be specified on a test. A test could have men who have had vasectomy of any kind, and men who have had no vasectomy of any kind. I will of course provide the details if I perceive them.

desertgal:

Not a liar, but definitely delusional. Here for attention. Therapy desperately needed.

The perceptions in themselves would not be defined as delusions. They are images, or impressions, and I do not place any weight or importance onto them in the way that I do with information that comes from ordinary perception. The fact that I am investigating whether these perceptions have any correlation with the real world is because of compelling (anecdotal) experiences, from which all I have concluded is that it is a worthy topic to put to the test. To conclude this and to have an interest in putting these perceptions to a test, I would also not define as being delusional behavior. I am not here for attention. I am here to discuss the perceptions in an impersonal way. This is not about me, this is about my investigation. And, again, no need for therapy. I've got no issues with these perceptions.

Well, he didn't say those scientific publications were yours, did he? Learn to read carefully.

No he did not, but I wanted to make sure that no one would make that false assumption. (As false assumptions have been known to appear on this thread.)

No, see, I mean a real field diary, Anita. Includes variables, controls, background information, etc. What you have on your website is laughable.

Laugh all you want. Many paranormal claimants don't put nearly as much work into their claim as I do.

When I said, "How do you detect the very significant vertical scar of heart bypass surgery?", desertgal said something silly again,

How do I? With my eyes, Anita. The same way you do. Yes, yes, I know-you do it with your alleged ability sooper imagination.

How on earth do you see through a shirt with your eyes and see a scar on a person's chest? I think we have discovered another paranormal claimant. And your claim is even more breathtaking than mine, you claim to see the scar with your eyes. Not even I can do that. I just detect the quantum physics vibrational aspect of the atoms that make the tissue with my sense of feeling which then constructs the images in my mind. Now, what you can do is really paranormal.

When I said, "I've never expected the anecdotes to be taken as evidence. All I say is that they are examples of what I claim to have perceived... ", desertgal revealed some abstract emotional response yet again by saying,

And that statement is even more hilarious the second time around.

I'll say it a third time. The observations page lists examples of what I claim to perceive. I don't see the humor, it's not even ironic.

 

[Uncayimmy]

In the perception I had I clearly saw two of them, each with a gap of removed tissue. I haven't specified this in each case when I describe the event because I thought it was implied that there are two. Just like it is implied that vasectomies are done on men.

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

When a man ejaculates, it comes out of one opening. For those who don't know "what part is operated on" it is not unreasonable for them to assume that there is one source where the sperm is blocked. In fact, this vasectomy FAQ answers the question about whether any fluid at all is ejaculated after a vasectomy. That's how poorly understood it is among the general population.

If you tell me after the fact that you knew there were two vas deferentia, I'm not going to call you a liar. But please don't give me that puzzled smiley icon as if I am way off base for pointing out the discrepancy.

If you would be more precise in your writing, this wouldn't happen. If you saw two vas deferentia, say so. For all we know the guy could have had just one testicle. If you use breast implants as an example, you had better point out if you see one or two. Not everyone with implants gets both done. It's typical to get both, but for a number of reasons some women only get one.

The details of the procedure need not necessarily be specified on a test. A test could have men who have had vasectomy of any kind, and men who have had no vasectomy of any kind. I will of course provide the details if I perceive them.

This is another example of why I say that I do not consider you a scientist. I very clearly established that "vasectomy" is a generic term for a procedure that disables the flow of sperm in the vas deferentia. The vas will look very different depending on what was done.

You said the following about the vasectomy you did detect:

I detected that he has had a vasectomy. I did not know prior what part is actually operated on in the procedure but was able to detect this. I also saw that it was not the case of a simple incision but that a section had been removed, something I could have not guessed or known prior to actually seeing it in this way.

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

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

 

[Coveredinbeeees]

Coveredinbeeees:
Thank you for your proposed crystal detection protocol. I think it is a wonderful idea, and it would make for a test that is easy to arrange. I will look into it while I continue to work on this main claim. If I discover in crystals a different claim that I am more confident or equally confident in as the medical perceptions, I can change the specifics of my paranormal claim to crystals, and I would love that. I haven't worked with crystals for over ten years now and look forward to taking them out again.

I'm glad you like the idea. I'd like to add a few extra words of advice to it if I may.

I suggested paper cups because they were the first thing to come to mind. Whatever vessel you choose to conceal the crystal in for the test, be sure to ensure the following before you begin.

1. Have an assistant confirm that they cannot tell whether the vessel is empty or contains a crystal simply by looking.

2. Perform an unblinded test in which you are fully aware which vessel contains the crystal. e.g. if you have paper cups labelled 1 to 10, have your assistant place the crystal beneath cup number 1 and ensure that you can detect it before proceeding to the test proper.

Double blind your test by having your assistant set up each run by placing the crystal under a randomly chosen (by die roll ideally) vessel while you are outside the testing area. Your assistant should simply note the number of the vessel chosen alongside the number of the run in her notebook, e.g. Run #1, Vessel #6

Have your assistant leave the testing area before you enter.

When you enter the testing area do not approach or touch any of the vessels. Simply look at them and see which one "feels" like it contains the crystal. Make a note of the number of this vessel in your own notebook alongside the number of the run. When you have done so leave the testing area, do not look under any of the vessels to confirm your choice.

Your assistant can now return to the vacated testing area, remove the crystal and randomly select which vessel to place it beneath for the next run.

When setting up each run your assistant should move each vessel slightly to ensure that no visual clue to the location of the crystal is given by only one vessel having been moved.

When all of the runs are complete, compare your notes with those of your assistant to see how you have scored.

I would suggest 4 runs with 1 crystal and 10 vessels. The odds of picking the correct vessel in 4 consecutive runs are 10000:1.

 

[Akhenaten]

You must understand that I come from a different perspective than everyone else.

I have no trouble understanding this.

I'm the one who has experienced these perceptions (subject), that is why I can approach this investigation in a different manner (subjectively), from a different starting point (as the subject), and you guys approach from your starting points (objectively), and all of us arrive at the same testing point.

I added some descriptive words. Can you detect them? They might explain why your last statement is rubbish.

I know more about the claim than any of you.

This may be true, but all of us together know considerably more than any of us do as individuals. Try to accept this.

Besides you're the one making tons of incorrect conclusions that you place your belief on and then throw at me and judge my character based on.

If only we could see the troof, eh? In any case, your character hasn't been called into question in this thread, just your inability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. Quite a pleasant person you seem, your responses here based on, as Yoda might say.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

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

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
The perceptions in themselves would not be defined as delusions.

By you, no. By others, yes.

They are images, or impressions

They are hallucinations.

and I do not place any weight or importance onto them in the way that I do with information that comes from ordinary perception.

Nonsense. You wouldn't be here otherwise.

The fact that I am investigating whether these perceptions have any correlation with the real world is because of compelling (anecdotal) experiences

Compelling fantasies.

To conclude this and to have an interest in putting these perceptions to a test, I would also not define as being delusional behavior.

You wouldn't. Others would and do.

And, again, no need for therapy. I've got no issues with these perceptions hallucinations.

Of course not. People who take hallucinogenic drugs don't have an issue with their hallucinations, either. But they are, still, hallucinations.

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

Many paranormal claimants don't put nearly as much work into their claim as I do.

Wanna bet? Ever heard of Uri Geller? He's been putting work into his claims (and being debunked) for 35 years. Sylvia Browne? At least 40 years. John Edward, Jeane Dixon...the list goes on and on. You are an amateur when it comes to paranormal claimants, Anita. You don't even come close to the "pro's".

When I said, "How do you detect the very significant vertical scar of heart bypass surgery?", desertgal said something silly again

More fantasy.

How on earth do you see through a shirt with your eyes and see a scar on a person's chest? I think we have discovered another paranormal claimant. And your claim is even more breathtaking than mine, you claim to see the scar with your eyes.

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

Not even I can do that.

Well, maybe not you.

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

More fantasy.

Now, what you can do is really paranormal.

No, what I can do is actually rooted in reality. I realize why that might seem strange to you, though.

When I said, "I've never expected the anecdotes to be taken as evidence. All I say is that they are examples of what I claim to have perceived... ", desertgal revealed some abstract emotional response yet again by saying,

Oh, jeez. Now she's a psychology student, as well.

I'll say it a third time. The observations page lists examples of what I claim to perceive. I don't see the humor, it's not even ironic.

No, it IS ironic, but you can't see it because the irony is based in reality.

 

[nathan]

I see I've not missed much in being away.

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

Anyway, I'll leave it to the more active skeptic participants to continue (y'all seem to be saying what I'd be saying).

 

[skeen]

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

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

And the quantum, and vibrational jargon is just outright embarrassing. If you had any data to support this, you'd be more than eligible for the nobel prize, and you'd win it.

Your denial is shocking. You cannot comprehend the claims you are making. In essence, you are claiming to be magic (by our current understanding of science), and therefore the most significant person in the entire world; as well as being a genius eligible for the nobel prize.

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

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

 

[Locknar]

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

See below:

So you have been medically diagnosed, by a neurologist, to have synesthesia?

No, but I recognize some of its defining characteristics in the way that I experience things and process information.

One other thing I find odd is this statement:

I will not involve my career or university in this investigation, for reasons you have shown now.

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

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

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

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

 

[tsig]

See below:




One other thing I find odd is this statement:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Uncayimmy]

I do have synesthesia. I automatically associate things with colors, shapes, and character and based on how I know some of my friends, I do this to a greater extent than most people. The question is whether my perceptions are synesthesia or what they are. I normally do not look for these kind of experiences. They are part of how I perceive.

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

 

[desertgal]

One other thing I find odd is this statement:

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

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

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

 

[Femke]

Femke:
I did answer this question already. I answer all questions.
In what way am I not applying science to this investigation? As long as it isn't based on impatience again, I'd be happy to know. Besides I am here to get help in test protocol design, that's what you guys are good at.

My apologies, I should not have mentioned statistics, you are right, you answered that before. I was mainly concerned about your lack of knowledge about the scientific method. Please let me elaborate.
When I did my PhD on lettuce I started out with the idea that wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola) and cultivated lettuce (L. sativa) might actually be one and the same species. So what I did was try to do my darndest to distinguish between them. And when I failed to do that, I was forced to conclude that they were one, very variable, species.

So I did not conclude 'they are the same', and then tried to see their similarities, but I gathered my data, could not find good differences between them, and then concluded 'they must be the same'.

There are others here who have better described the scientific method, so I will not elaborate here (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). I was merely puzzled that you did not know it, since it is one of the most important parts in a Science study. So, my question is: did you get a course in how to design experiments, confirmation bias, blinding, etc. And why can't you see that you are going about it in the reverse direction?
I hope I have been clearer now.