Vision From Feeling

[Legend]

 

[Professor Yaffle]

You might want to do an online test to get a better idea of whether you actually have synaesthesia.

http://www.synesthete.org/

From what you have said here, I don't think you have. You said that one number has a particular colour, but others don't usually and when they do it is not consistent across time. Also that you don't really see those colours vividly associated with the number in question, more that it is just a link in your mind. This doesn't fit with my previous knowedge of synaesthesia (which I admit may be incomplete). I think you just experience what everyone does - that some things (words or letters etc) are associated with colours to a greater or lesser exent in our minds. For example, for me, the word wednesday makes me think of a blueisg grey, and thursday a brownish green - but I don't actually directly percieve those colours when presented with the words.

 

[Pup]

For instance I have the general vibrational aspect of a human being available to me, which is somewhat the average healthy person based on past experiences of perceiving the vibrational aspect of several people. I can then look at a new medicine that I have not seen before, and download its vibrational aspect. I can then combine these two in my mind's awareness and they interact into a resulting vibrational aspect that shows the superposition of both and shows what the effect of the medicine is on this average human body. I've done this with a pill that I was later told is a diuretic.

So you're saying you can look at an unidentified medicine, and say what effect it will have on an average healthy person?

See, that's an example of the kind of thing you mention, that would be an amazing ability that would change science as we know it, and you say you can do it without any hesitation. Definitely a million dollar prize winner.

Frankly, I don't believe you can. I believe the ability will mysteriously fade when actually tested.

So just do that.

Pill manufacturers add colorings and arbitrarily choose the shape of pills, and that doesn't seem to affect your ability. So can you do it without seeing the normal shape and color of a pill, as long as the medicine is still effective? Otherwise, you're just guessing from the outward appearance of the pills like anyone else, and not really seeing their "vibrational aspect."

Have someone crush a few different pills into powder and mix the powder with a drop or two of food coloring, so you can't recognize them by their shape or color, and put each bit of powder into a different numbered cup, set a list of what they are on the table, and leave. You come in and write down which numbered cup is the aspirin, which number is the diuretic, which number is the anti-depressant, which is the antihistamine, and so forth.

People here can suggest tests with more controls than that, but that's a start.

 

[Belz...]

In the post to UncaYimmy which you are referring to, I was merely specifying that it is not the case of beliefs, but of experiences. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's what you'd want me to say.

No, what I want you to do is show that you really have said abilities by agreeing to a controlled test, or else admit that you don't have them. Seems simple to me. But, as you've shown here, and as I predicted earlier on, you'd rather just convince yourself that you do have them and not take the risk of losing that comforting thought.

If I say "experiences", you want me to say "beliefs". If I'd say "beliefs", you'd want me to say "experiences".

I don't recall ever asking you to talk about "experiences", so your accusations are falling on deaf ears.

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
You're being ridiculous.

Am I? We'll see...

When I look at people I see images of organs and tissue

No, when you look at people, your mind constructs hallucinations of organs and tissue.

and when I describe the health information I perceive, there is apparent accuracy.

Nope. The only examples you provide are unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unverified, possibly fictitious anecdotes, performed on unnamed, possibly fictitious people, solely designed to substantiate your hallucinations.

I've never made the claims you say, you guys are making things up.

Nope. You've claimed to: be able to commune with ghosts, visualize crime scenes, telepathically communicate with animals and mythical creatures, visualize the troof about dinosaurs, are an extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star, make chemical and plant analysis, gotten stoned from looking at cannibis through a scanning electron microscope, found a cure for cancer, and perform medical diagnoses, without benefit of a medical education, with an ability that would turn science, as we know it, upside down and earn you a Nobel Prize. In short, you proclaim to be the most extraordinary human being (or ET incarnation) in the history of mankind.

You made this stuff up. We didn't. Your school would probably be interested to know they have a student who has exhibited clear signs of mental instability.

Besides, I've confided in three of my favorite professors about the perceptions and my interest in investigating them.

You say. You say a lot of things. Most of them delusional.

The only 'investigating' that needs to be done here involves ink blots and an MMPI.

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

My posts aren't off topic. They're just not the part of your delusional claims that you want to discuss. But, again, ALL your claims fantasies are relevant to your credibility, and your credibility is relevant to the authenticity of all your claims fantasies.

 

[Ashles]

Oh dear oh dear...

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

It's not the wall of text that is the issue, it is that all your many, many words don't seem to ever address the questions asked.

I know that frogs and toads can exhibit aggressive behavior,

Of course. That came across so clearly when you described them as "non-aggressive animals"

however in my perception they do not engage with as much aggressive emotion and thought as many other animals do when they want to be violent.

Based on... nothing again?

So, to recap, some amphibians are sometimes not as agressive as some other unspecified animals?
Should I call the Nobel board or do you want sole credit for this astounding discovery?

Although I know what I perceive and how I understand vibrational structures, I have not learned the appropriate science terminology yet and until I do I would have to explain everything in my own words and in a lengthier way.

And this is different from someone simply describing their hallucinations using everyday language... how exactly?
Where does the tiniest inkling of science enter into this anywhere?

Also I can not reveal my research ideas, you'll be reading about them in my science publications like everyone else a few years from now.

You are becoming a cliche now. "I can't tell you all my excellent stuff which I really honestly have because it's secret".

Where have we heard that hundreds of times before? Oh yes, from all those paranormal claimants who visit these forums with no evidence who you are so different to.

Science is done in public, in groups, with people working together to develop theories to learn about the world and testing each other's theories and data to ensure robustness and usefulness. Not as a way to show how special and clever you are.

And anyway if you detailed a theory here there would be a record of it. Nobody would steal your special secret ideas.

However without statistics, research, knowledge of scientific terminology, anatomy, quantum mechanics or any understanding of the scientific method... I don't think anything you could write would be different from the vague descriptions you have already offered.

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

Sure. Just book some space in the engineering lab next to my hovercar.

They are instruments that generate light structures that contain detail and produce more specific and more complex structured effects in the physical world.

I once drew a big picture of my hovercar. It had lasers and everything.

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

Because of course you rule the world and have that kind of power. Would you also wave a hand and have their family banished too?
Please get over yourself.

And anyway why do you think you can describe what it entails to a Physicist any better than you have here?
Oh I forgot you are leaving out all the secret stuff that you would have patented.

By the way you have been pretty much laughed at by peofessional physicists on these forums. When are you having them fired?

A dark variety of the jade plant,

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

Except you aren't because you keep telling us you can't do this with any level of reliability.
Really you can't have it both ways.
Your atomic vision either works well enough to identify chemical effects (as you are here claiming) and would therefore also be testable in this way.
Or it doesn't do either.

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

Similar in color to this picture, but with a very narrow stem and flat on the top. If I had a book of Swedish mushrooms I could pick out the exact species. And again, I don't know what chemical. I do perceive the general shape and electron distribution of a molecule, as well as a general understanding of atomic composition and atomic distribution,

So how do you know it will cure cancer and affect the human kidneys if you can't actually even see the shape clearly enough to identify it or identify the elements (why not count the protons).
Just working on a hunch?

but this is an ability that needs to grow stronger until I can just point at a molecule and draw it out and give its chemical name.

Sigh. If only you had waited until after that mythical point to set up your website and tell everyone about your 'abilities'.

I have a fun one for you guys, if you can handle it...

Oh jolly good - more unverified anecdotes, just what this thread needed.

I was once looking at various images that are produced with the Scanning Electron Microscope. I was looking at a particular one and started to feel effects in my body that I've never experienced before. I don't know whether the effects became physical so to be occurring in my body for real, or whether they were just perceptions of physical response that I was experiencing. I felt as if my pupils got larger and something happened to my energy level, muscles, and nerves. Without knowing it I was looking at a microscopic image of Cannabis.

Seems strange to be looking though an electron microscope without anyone telling you why you are doing so or what you are looking at.

Once I checked the name for what the picture depicted it made sense. Earlier I had been looking at magnifications of insect bodies

In the Amazing Department of Random Images.

so I had no way of expecting a drug.

Tricksy Scanning Electron Microscope technicians.

So somehow, (and yes, another claim) I can look at the detailed structure of things and relate it to its properties, and combining that with the structure of a human body I can perceive the combined effect.

Well unless we actually offer to set up a test around this in which case the ability will be mysteriously relegated to not good enough to actually perform better than chance in proper testing.

Are you seeing the pattern here?
You make a silly claim. We suggest testing it. You say it doesn't work well enough to test. We wonder what on earth makes you think you actually have this ability then. You invent yet another new 'ability' etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Of course I've never used this drug by the way. And, by the way, many of you have probably wondered at least once by now whether I've used drugs and whether any of these perceptions and experiences might be drug-induced. The answer is no. I've not used drugs and don't even smoke or drink alcohol.

I don't think anyone here thinks it is to do with drugs. Most people here now seem to simply think you are deluded or attention-seeking.

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

No it really absolutely isn't.
Someone treating their perceptions in an objective manner would try to actually have objective testing.
You go out of your way to continually perform entirely subjective testing.

I will do this a few years from now in the science lab, with real conventional mathematics to which I apply my concepts of vibrations.
And most of my ideas are top secret until patented and published rightfully in my honor.

Well if it's all so secret how come you keep going on about your abilities then? Part of it is so secret you can't even tell Physcics professors, and the rest is so public you feel compelled to set up a website about it?

Tel you what, when you actually learn some conventional mathematics, and you actually learn how to use real scientific terminology, how about you come back then when you can actually discuss things scientifically rather than sounding like someone writing an essay for a creative fiction course entitled "My amazing summer of superpowers".

This claim has really jumped the shark even by the usual standards.
I am starting to slightly worry that we are somehow feeding the delusions of somebody who would be better off speaking to people other than us.

 

[skeen]

She doesn't have synesthesia, and I agree that her proving it to herself would be a big step in showing she is unable to differentiate reality from fantasy. This is a woman who just makes huge leaps to the paranormal, for anything and everything, in some kind of an attempt to make herself seem special.

I mean, Anita seems to have a cocktail of psychological issues. From compulsive lying, delusions, possible hallucinations, self-deception and who knows what else. One thing is for sure - we've seen plenty of people just like her.

Can you believe, that after all this time, there has not been a single, tiny, little spot of evidence for this alleged ability? At least the bigfooters intrigue people - I have not been intrigued.

It truly is, as if there's something in the back of her mind preventing her from exposing herself to, herself. Anita, you must seek counseling.

 

[Locknar]

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

No. I can not/will not speak for others but I am not part of "we" as you've outlined.

And, all that we conclude is that I failed to falsify the paranormal claim in that example.

No, as you have no proof the event took place, no corroboration of events, no written diary (other then a well after the fact blog), etc. This is simply an assumption on your part, nothing more.

We conclude that I could have guessed it wrong with 5:6 chance.

BOLD added by Locknar

This is a assumption on your part as there is no proof the event took place, not a conclusion. However, assuming the event took place and no cold reading/prior knowledge, in this single instance you had a 1/6 chance of being correct vs a 5/6 chance of being incorrect. Hardly impressive by any measure.

However, if we use the criteria you seem to be operating under (ie. "I said it so it must be so").... I picked two people (male) in my office at random.

- Subject one; I "detected" no vasectomy - this was confirmed as accurate
- Subject two; I "detected" he had had a vasectomy - this was confirmed accurate.

"Detected" is not exactly accurate...more like just blind guessing on my part. In both cases I simply asked them and took their word as accurate.

I've achieved a 100% success rate in TWO instances. Astounding! I've NEVER been wrong!

Anyway....

Interesting word you used - "guessed". If you can "see" these things why would you have to "guess?"

I understand this comment, and it is a very important one. However there have been experiences with perceptions whose accuracy has been confirmed by other means, and where cold reading should not have been available.

This is a baseless assumption on your part. Additionally, EVERY example you've provided can be accounted for via cold reading - you simply choose to attribute these events to "woo woo."

The interesting thing is that I've not been incorrect, and that I perceive images of tissue.

This is a baseless assumption on your part.

I know they would be willing to step forward, but I choose not to involve my family and friends in this discussion. This discussion has, at times, been somewhat uncomfortable and I refuse to bring my loved ones here.

As with your reluctance to use the resources at your school, this is just "kick the can"; ie. excuses.

There is no fantasy, I perceive medical images which when I've checked for accuracy have appread to be accurate and even in cases where I can not imagine the conventional source of information, and that is why I proceed toward a real test to find their actual accuracy.

Proof? Again, this is a baseless assumption on your part. EVERY instance you've described can be accounted for via cold reading - you simply choose to attribute these events to "woo woo" while avoiding any and all conclusive tests.

 

[Locknar]

Sure. Just book some space in the engineering lab next to my hovercar.

I once drew a big picture of my hovercar. It had lasers and everything.

Priceless!

 

[Moochie]

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

<snip>

Thank you. I reckon there is at least one episode, or possibly two episodes of Outer Limits in there.


M.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

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

You don't happen to have a theory that brontosauruses are thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the other end, do you?

 

[desertgal]

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

And a FREE psychic reading with VFF!

And here's for a 1000 more... ​

Well, at least, she confirms that she is, in fact, posing as a psychic. No more waffling over ESP.

I won't cheer for 1,000 more, though. I think Anita's delusions have pretty much run their course here.

 

[Cuddles]

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

Make no mistake, I am not supporting you in the slightest. I was merely pointing out that people should focus on the paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims rather than being distracted by irrelevancies, and I took the opportunity to clarify what seems to be a common misconception about scientific education. My point was simply that your education is irrelevant, it is your critical thinking and scientific ability that are on display for all to see that matter, regardless of where they came from.

 

[Belz...]

No, when you look at people, your mind constructs hallucinations of organs and tissue.

VfF: Really, you'd be surprised how easy it is to see things that aren't there when you put your mind to it.

Get tested, already, so you can tell the difference between reality and delusion, either way.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Most people here now seem to simply think you are deluded or attention-seeking.

Could I have a fiver on the double?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Professor Yaffle:
I did the synesthesia test on www.synesthete.org. I would like to trust you with my password and username to access my results and see for yourself. The system that calculates the discrepancy between repeated trials of the same number or sound is very picky. For instance I perceive the number 0 in the very same gray each time, and try to depict it in the exact way in the program, yet it announces a discrepancy in the colors. As for the chord and instruments, problem is I see two colors not one. Please see my results and you may present your conclusions here.

Pup:

So you're saying you can look at an unidentified medicine, and say what effect it will have on an average healthy person?

It is something I experience. I do experience perceiving medical effects when I look at an unknown medicine or substance, and I have experienced correlation to their actual effects, but only a test can conclude whether this in fact takes place or not. Until a test indicates something, treat it as just anecdotes.

See, that's an example of the kind of thing you mention, that would be an amazing ability that would change science as we know it, and you say you can do it without any hesitation. Definitely a million dollar prize winner.

This is an experience and not a claim. Yet I would be more than willing to test it just to find out.

Frankly, I don't believe you can. I believe the ability will mysteriously fade when actually tested.

I would not object to that. It doesn't really matter.

Pill manufacturers add colorings and arbitrarily choose the shape of pills, and that doesn't seem to affect your ability. So can you do it without seeing the normal shape and color of a pill, as long as the medicine is still effective? Otherwise, you're just guessing from the outward appearance of the pills like anyone else, and not really seeing their "vibrational aspect."

I'm not so sure, I experience specific effects and I don't think guessing could do it. Just my experience of it, that's all.

Have someone crush a few different pills into powder and mix the powder with a drop or two of food coloring, so you can't recognize them by their shape or color, and put each bit of powder into a different numbered cup, set a list of what they are on the table, and leave. You come in and write down which numbered cup is the aspirin, which number is the diuretic, which number is the anti-depressant, which is the antihistamine, and so forth.

Thank you, I will try to arrange that.

Belz:

No, what I want you to do is show that you really have said abilities by agreeing to a controlled test, or else admit that you don't have them. Seems simple to me. But, as you've shown here, and as I predicted earlier on, you'd rather just convince yourself that you do have them and not take the risk of losing that comforting thought.

I'm not opposed to finding out from a test that I do not have an ESP ability. I am quite open for it.

desertgal:

No, when you look at people, your mind constructs hallucinations of organs and tissue.

And once again you are incorrect, nathan just posted the definition of hallucinations and based on how my perceptions come about, they are not hallucinations.

Nope. The only examples you provide are unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unverified, possibly fictitious anecdotes, performed on unnamed, possibly fictitious people, solely designed to substantiate your hallucinations.

I've not had a study or a test yet with witnesses. The anecdotes are just part of my claim, they are not evidence. And by definition they are not hallucinations.

I realize that my experiences are unconventional. However I keep a clear distinction between those aspect of my life and my life otherwise. I do not base conclusions or beliefs on the unconventional experiences or perceptions, so there is no harm. I have a clear understanding of the distinction between my subjective experiences and our real world that we mutually perceive. It is only now that I've begun investigating the medical perceptions, but in a rational way. And there is nothing wrong in doing that.

Ashles:

And this is different from someone simply describing their hallucinations using everyday language... how exactly?

The perceptions are by definition not hallucinations. Besides it was decided pages ago that we will not discuss any theories as to what the perceptions are or how they come about. We are here to establish an investigation to find out whether they have correlation with actual health information, and then if they do, to find out whether this is accessed through normal (such as cold reading) or paranormal means. Of course we would not expect ESP, and no one has concluded ESP.

Where does the tiniest inkling of science enter into this anywhere?

In the way that this is investigated.

You are becoming a cliche now. "I can't tell you all my excellent stuff which I really honestly have because it's secret".

That's right. Once I begin working with this in my career or spare time I will invite you to take part in the results and progress. I will not post the specifics here and that is my choice, and I don't care what that that seems like or what is concluded based on that.

Science is done in public, in groups, with people working together to develop theories to learn about the world and testing each other's theories and data to ensure robustness and usefulness. Not as a way to show how special and clever you are.

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

Sure. Just book some space in the engineering lab next to my hovercar.

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

And anyway why do you think you can describe what it entails to a Physicist any better than you have here?

Because I haven't described it in full, here. And I won't. You can read about it when I present it in the way science is presented.

By the way you have been pretty much laughed at by peofessional physicists on these forums. When are you having them fired?

I've not described things in detail. And I don't think they would laugh if I did.

Except you aren't because you keep telling us you can't do this with any level of reliability.
Really you can't have it both ways.
Your atomic vision either works well enough to identify chemical effects (as you are here claiming) and would therefore also be testable in this way.
Or it doesn't do either.

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

So how do you know it will cure cancer and affect the human kidneys if you can't actually even see the shape clearly enough to identify it or identify the elements (why not count the protons).
Just working on a hunch?

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

Seems strange to be looking though an electron microscope without anyone telling you why you are doing so or what you are looking at.

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

Someone treating their perceptions in an objective manner would try to actually have objective testing.
You go out of your way to continually perform entirely subjective testing.

I need to have the study to make a stronger claim. This was even suggested by the local skeptics group.

Tel you what, when you actually learn some conventional mathematics, and you actually learn how to use real scientific terminology, how about you come back then when you can actually discuss things scientifically rather than sounding like someone writing an essay for a creative fiction course entitled "My amazing summer of superpowers".

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

skeen:

I mean, Anita seems to have a cocktail of psychological issues. From compulsive lying, delusions, possible hallucinations, self-deception and who knows what else. One thing is for sure - we've seen plenty of people just like her.

I am not lying. I have been describing my experiences as they took place. By definition I do not have hallucinations. Why can't we all just focus on the objective which is to investigate the claim?

Can you believe, that after all this time, there has not been a single, tiny, little spot of evidence for this alleged ability?

And that is not entirely my fault. So it is impatience that makes you act this way.

It truly as is, as if there's something in the back of her mind preventing her from exposing herself to, herself.

I am not opposed to finding out that there is no ESP ability. I've had accurate medical perceptions and I am curious to find out why and where that information comes from. I don't see why that is being criticized.

Locknar:

This is a assumption on your part as there is no proof the event took place, not a conclusion. However, assuming the event took place and no cold reading/prior knowledge, in this single instance you had a 1/6 chance of being correct vs a 5/6 chance of being incorrect. Hardly impressive by any measure.

Each time one of my perceptions has appeared to be accurate, I do not conclude that it is evidence in favor of ESP, since cold reading could have been available. What it does provide is yet another example where the claim was not falsified, that's all. All it does is keep me in the investigation and allow for the time and work to prepare a study and a test.

That aside, interesting word "guessed"; if you can "see" these things why would you have to "guess?"

I don't guess. I was just saying that a person could have the chance of 5:6 to guess wrong on vasectomy. I never implied that I guess.

This is a baseless assumption on your part. Additionally, EVERY example you've provided can be accounted for via cold reading - you simply choose to attribute these events to "woo woo."

I've experienced cases where I can not see what the cold reading would have been. Health information that is not accessible to ordinary senses of perception, that I had no prior knowledge of, and whose accuracy was determined by other means than me asking or telling the person what I saw.

As with your reluctance to use the resources at your school, this is just "kick the can"; ie. excuses.

I will NOT involve my school. Period.

Proof? Again, this is a baseless assumption on your part. EVERY instance you've described can be accounted for via cold reading - you simply choose to attribute these events to "woo woo" while avoiding any and all conclusive tests.

Not necessarily. There've been cases where I can not imagine what the cold reading would have been. And I am not avoiding tests.

desertgal:

Well, at least, she confirms that she is, in fact, posing as a psychic.

I was being ironic toward Locknar. I do not pose to be a psychic.

I won't cheer for 1,000 more, though. I think Anita's delusions have pretty much run their course here.

That was irony again. Sorry about that.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Cuddles:

Make no mistake, I am not supporting you in the slightest. I was merely pointing out that people should focus on the paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims rather than being distracted by irrelevancies, and I took the opportunity to clarify what seems to be a common misconception about scientific education. My point was simply that your education is irrelevant, it is your critical thinking and scientific ability that are on display for all to see that matter, regardless of where they came from.

And that was supportive with regard to the issue about education. I did not interpret that you support my claim or anything beyond this particular issue that you clarified on my behalf.

 

[skeen]

Anita, you only think you have had accurate medical "perceptions". The reality is, you have not. How do I know this? Because it is impossible, and that is a reasonable conclusion to draw.

You keep using the word "perceive" as if it saves you from criticism. Hallucinations, and deceptions are perceptions. They are false perceptions, don't you get that?

If your objective were to truly investigate your alleged abilities, you would have had a mountain of evidence by now. You're obviously not like everyone else, but you're not stupid. You hide behind a thin cloak of concern preventing you from merely doing very simple, very quick tests.

There is no reason in the world that if you can do what you say you can do, you wouldn't be on every talk show around the world by the week's end.

I'm bored of you. You aren't even gearing toward a test, but a "study", which still, I think will not happen. How you have managed to draw all of this out, over so much time, over so very many posts, and present absolutely nothing whatsoever, is (and I am using the correct term, this is not derogatory) pathetic.

Your claims are pathetic. Your anecdotes are pathetic. Your transparency is pathetic. You have none of these abilities - Anita, you are just like everyone else. Even worse, you're just like every other claimant on this site; the only difference is, you write more.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

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

Excuse me if you have already stated this, but what toxic effects do you percieve from this molecule in the jade plant?

 

[Uncayimmy]

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

Your description does not match up to the sources I have found on the subject. But at least we got the word "if" out of you.