Vision From Feeling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Post #284: "Alright I will share this with you. The first professor I shared this with thought it was very "unusual" although he was objective and did not assume one way or the other and I was happy to have been able to share this with someone, especially someone such as a science professor. The second professor I shared this with expressed tremendous interest and curiosity in knowing more, and let me know that he would be interested in finding out what the results of the tests are. With this professor I discussed my theories as to what the nature of this ability could be. The third professor was very objective and offered a suggestion of how this might be possible, suggesting that I might be picking up on thermal information. He specializes in optical instruments and has great interest in how different species take in information to translate this into understanding of the world. I do not want to involve any of the faculty in my private and somewhat unconventional study. Do they wish to have involvement they will have to take that step not me."
Thanks desertgal - it's hard to keep up with all the different claims.

This is interesting as I have received a PM from Anita.

In it she 'explains' that she has reticence in sharing her ideas because she told her theories to another student who stole her ideas and has since been claiming credit for them.
Also this other student has been using the ideas in experiments.
Also that she is particularly annoyed because the other student cannot explain the concepts underlying the ideas (obviously because he 'stole' them from Anita.)

(Yes I did explain why that was all colossally inconvincing.)

So bearing in mind she has supposedly told three Professors already, and another student, who has also told Professors and is actually using these ideas in experiments... it is even more bafling that she won't explain the ideas in more detail.

These ideas are, according to Anita herself, already in the public domain and being used!

And this doesn't really gel with having told these Professors.
If she told them before the other student stole her idea she can easily discredit him.
If she told them afterwards, why did they not refer to this other amazing student with similar ideas?
Or else they are in different departments and haven't heard about the other student.

In which case, again, the amazing ideas are so unremarkable no-one ever takes any interest in sharing them.

There was some stuff trying to explain Vibrational Algebra further but, trust me, it adds absolutely nothing to what we have already seen.

I think we can now safely say though that 'Vibrational Algebra' does not in any way involve algebra, or any maths at all.

It is sort of an umbrella term for "All the sciency stuff that could describe various random physical properties of an object, lightwave, or anything really, I dunno".

It strikes me as the sort of thing someone might come up with who likes the idea of coming up with a scientific breakthrough but doesn't know enough science to actually do so.

Words, and phrases are a lot easier to invent than original scientific concepts.
 
Ashles:
What I mean by vibrational algebra is superposition of my perceived vibrational aspects from different sources, in my mind. In ways that are like addition or like subtraction, and yield my perception of a new resulting vibrational aspect. If I perceive a vibrational aspect of a medicine, and a vibrational aspect of a human, and I add these two vibrational aspects together in my mind, I am doing what I call vibrational algebra.
You can call it 'Trans-Dimensional Quantum Compensation' for all that means to anyone else.

At the moment we call it 'imagination'.

Still it seems clear now that Algebra or maths in general has absolutely nothing to do with this.

That is what I meant by it, and I did provide examples, and I regret that you are falsely accusing me of not having provided an example and trying to force a different answer out of me. The question was answered long ago.
Again I cannot state more clearly that you have done no such thing.
You state now you have provide 'examples' - plural? Link to one. Provide the post number. Demonstrate this isn't a lie.

I may have also mentioned that I have an interest in applying my concepts of vibrational aspects to conventional mathematics, but that is something I have not done yet.
Studying maths first has got to be a useful first step.

My interest in applying my ideas that are based on the perceptions to science are not part of my paranormal claim and I will not discuss them here or with you Ashles. Further inquiry into it will not be considered.
You raised it in the first place. You didn't need to.
You then couldn't explain it.
You also claim you have given examples of it. But can't provide details of where.
You also claim it is a secret.
You also claim you have told it to three Professors, none of whom has taken it any further.
You also claim that you joined a project into which you introduced your ideas.
You then claim you told another student about this who stole your ideas and is getting credit for them. Even though they can't answer questions about the ideas. And joined the project after you did!

Even if we took your unconvincing stories at face value, it appears Professors at your University find other students more convincing than you at presenting your own ideas. Even if they can't explain the concepts behind them!

The more you write, the more contradictions and just plain illogical claims appear.
That's why this thread is so fun!
 
I made a few posts in the moderated thread if anyone is interested. Much of it we have covered here, but there are a few new wrinkles.

I've had a couple of chats with Anita on Facebook. It's interesting how a one-on-one interactive chat can reveal things not really seen in her posts. One of the most interesting things I noticed, which I predicted early on in this thread, is that she can be charming especially when she's being very persistent. She talked about feeling vulnerable. She was flattering me, and we were both flirting in a harmless way while at the same time we were having serious discussions. She was simultaneously disarming and extremely persistent.

In my personal opinion I think she's reporting the "apparent accuracy" of her anecdotes in an apparently accurate manner. By that I mean I'm reasonably confident that she is being told she is accurate. What she is discounting is the sheer effect of her personality. She is not a woman you dismiss or disagree with lightly. It's just not worth the trouble - just agree and move on.

I mean, if *we* can't get her to dismiss her paranormal claims and look to the known and ordinary world, do you think your average mope could do it, especially one who is friend or family? I'm sure they humor her rather than engage her because it's a fruitless endeavor. Who's gonna tell her she's wrong about a reading and risk getting a "wall of words" about how she's never wrong?

Like I said, this is just my opinion, but it certainly explains a lot of things. I don't think she's being majorly deceptive to anyone but herself. Minor stuff? Sure, we're all guilty of that. But overall she wants to believe and finds way to make things fit. When they don't fit, she gets sick, backs off, and heads in a direction where she's less likely to hear what she doesn't want to hear. Sounds like the night I lost my virginity.
 
Last edited:
This is interesting as I have received a PM from Anita.

In it she 'explains' that she has reticence in sharing her ideas because she told her theories to another student who stole her ideas and has since been claiming credit for them.
Also this other student has been using the ideas in experiments.
Also that she is particularly annoyed because the other student cannot explain the concepts underlying the ideas (obviously because he 'stole' them from Anita.)

(Yes I did explain why that was all colossally inconvincing.)

And colossally confusing, as well. Earlier, she said:

Post #905:"My research ideas in the rearrangement of physical structures with light, and in the creation of light structures are highly acceptable research interests within the field of optics.

Thank you for expressing interest in my research ideas. My research ideas are much more elaborate and in depth than what I have expressed here. Of course I can not share top secret information here in public. You will be reading about it in scientific publications like everyone else."

One minute, we will be reading about her theories in scientific publications, and the next, someone stole them and they are already in the public domain. I'm lost.

And I still really fail to see how she 'cannot' share her theories here, for fear of someone stealing them. Wouldn't posting them in this thread, with the time, date, and her IP address, be sufficient to prove she is the author of the theories? Is she concerned that Chillzero would snatch her theories, delete the thread to cover her tracks, and disappear cackling into the night?

Or am I missing something here?

So bearing in mind she has supposedly told three Professors already, and another student, who has also told Professors and is actually using these ideas in experiments... it is even more bafling that she won't explain the ideas in more detail.

Not to mention baffling that she has continually claimed that she 'forbids' involving her university, but, yet, has told three Professors already.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention baffling that she has continually claimed that she 'forbids' involving her university, but, yet, has told three Professors already.
Well if we include the tungsten study she desribed in the PM (that the other bad student gatecrashed) then it is even more.

I will include the relevant paragraph:
visionfromfeeling said:
We have a physics professor who works on a project where laser is used to rearrange tungsten metal. I fell in love with the project as soon as I heard about it, and once I expressed my ideas and interest in these areas of optics the professor was impressed and invited me to join his research team! But then this other student had to join and tries to impress with my ideas.

Actually now I re-read it it raises further issues - she was invited to join the tungsten study based on her ideas. Yet the other student managed to get involved somehow? Wasn't it an invite-only study? Did he present the ideas and somehow also get invited? Does the Professor have a poor memory or not care about plagiarism?

N.B. - Nothing in the PM was of a personal nature and I have explained to Anita that I will reproduce any sections of PMs I feel are relevant to claims.
I totally understand if she chooses not to PM me in future - in fact I would prefer it if communication remained in the thread, especially if, like this, it involves matters directly relevant to issues discussed on the thread.
I don't really get why she PMd me the story - my responses won't be different in PM from the thread and I may also have to end up responding to some of it twice.
Anita, in my opinion, has used a lot of tricks on this thread to try and force people to accept her opinions, and she simply refuses to be wrong about anything. And refuses to accept that some people just do not believe some of her claims and stories. Which is why she almost obsessively can leave no comment without response.
I don't know where she is getting the time to study at the moment.
When I have some time I may read through the entire thread again from the start. It's pretty interesting.
 
Last edited:
Actually now I re-read it it raises further issues - she was invited to join the tungsten study based on her ideas. Yet the other student managed to get involved somehow? Wasn't it an invite-only study? Did he present the ideas and somehow also get invited? Does the Professor have a poor memory or not care about plagiarism?

Even more confusing. I find it unlikely that a Professor would not care about plagiarism, especially when it was happening in his own study, or that he would invite the plagiarist to join the same study as the original theorist.

If so, he's a rather unethical Professor. If he did do that, why, then, would Anita not complain to the powers that be? Surely, there must be some type of student ethics committee or such to report such things to. I would assume that the plagiarist would not be able to present proof that he originated the theories-since he stole them-so she would have had, at least, some grounds for proving a complaint.

Poor memory? Possibly...but, really, it's a stretch.

Very puzzling. And, really, as you said, unconvincing.
 
If so, he's a rather unethical Professor. If he did do that, why, then, would Anita not complain to the powers that be? Surely, there must be some type of student ethics committee or such to report such things to. I would assume that the plagiarist would not be able to present proof that he originated the theories-since he stole them-so she would have had, at least, some grounds for proving a complaint.
That was part of my response.
I would have thought that, if Anita can explain the theories to a level that would impress a Professor of Physics and the other student can't, then it would be fairly easy to make a complaint.
It is a serious breach of ethics described, and one that would be apparently straightforward to sort out.

Anita, in her PM, described how thefts often go on in science (!), mentioning Crick and Watson and Rosalind Franklin's work on DNA, apparently missing the irony that we have been subsequently able to identify her contribution.
And also I'm pretty sure that (unethical behaviour and unacceptable omissions aside) Crick and Watson did themselves do some pretty major work on the identification of DNA, and I'm fairly sure they were able to explain the underlying details when questioned.
 
It seems to me that VFF has somewhat grandiose ideas of what a science undergraduate is and can do. For instance, she said that her school makes undergraduates do 'research'. Well yes, possibly, but doing a self-directed project at that level isn't research like doing a PhD is 'research'.

Similarly, she said that a good school like hers will encourage its undergrads to have spectacular ideas and go and research them (she cited a fellow-student who's working on a hovercar). Again, this may be true. However, in both cases VFF mistakes a teaching tool for original scientific research. When I taught in academia - not science - I'd often give my undergrads werid and wacky ideas to chew on, and I'd certainly let them pursue their own weird ideas. This is an effective way for them to learn how research works and why it is that some ideas get accepted and others fail. It doesn't mean I necessarily thought the ideas had any merit. I wasn't expecting undergrads to change the face of the subject, merely to learn for themselves how it works.

To look at it another way, VFF's friend could quite happily do undergrad projects about hovercars, and he might learn something from it. However, he aint going to get funding, or a place on a course, to do a PhD in it unless he can come up with some damn convincing maths.

VFF, it may be news to you, but as an undergrad nobody cares about your ideas. You're at the stage where you're still learning how things work. Later you may become a great scientist, but right now you need to learn the absolute basics before you have your grand ideas.

Oh, and just to add- I'm serious too when I urge you to see a doctor. This is not something I'd joke about.
 
That was part of my response.
I would have thought that, if Anita can explain the theories to a level that would impress a Professor of Physics and the other student can't, then it would be fairly easy to make a complaint.
It is a serious breach of ethics described, and one that would be apparently straightforward to sort out.

Forget ethics and the apparent inconsistencies with the complaints about plagiarism, the whole thing doesn't make the slightest bit of sense anyway. Think about it. Anita is claiming to have an ability that no-one else has ever been shown to posses. Her studies, vibrational algebra, inventions and so on are all apparently based on and around those abilities. How could anyone possibly plagiarise that? This other student could steal her claims, but they couldn't possible reproduce her actual abilities unless they happened to posses them as well. Why is Anita complaining about plagiarism when she should instead be celebrating the discovery of the only other person she has met who shares her miraculous abilities?

In a thread full of contradictory and nonsensical claims, this one really is special.
 
Why haven't we heard of these ground breaking discoveries? Does Anita even know she's lying? And, is it just me, or has Anita said nothing that would convince anyone that she has even a basic understanding of any scientific subject?
 
<snip for brevity> Like I said, this is just my opinion, but it certainly explains a lot of things. I don't think she's being majorly deceptive to anyone but herself. Minor stuff? Sure, we're all guilty of that. But overall she wants to believe and finds way to make things fit. When they don't fit, she gets sick, backs off, and heads in a direction where she's less likely to hear what she doesn't want to hear.

Well, as I said before, I don't believe she is being deliberately deceptive with other people, either, although she is to herself. And I'll agree that her friends and family have probably just elected to humor her - given the stubbornness she has shown on this very thread about being correct 100%, it wouldn't be worth the argument to question her.

For example, my great aunt Tilly, at family gatherings, always used to regale us kids with her conviction that we were descended from Abraham Lincoln. It wasn't true, we knew it wasn't true, and, given that she was about 197, it would have made her Lincoln's daughter-but it was easier to nod and then roll our eyes out of her sight. Arguing with her just meant that she would pop her teeth out and lisp a fictitious genealogical tree. It wasn't worth the effort, or the spit shower, or my grandmother telling us to leave Aunt Tilly alone.

BUT, Aunt Tilly's tale of our log cutting ancestor was limited to family, and a few friends and neighbors. She wasn't getting on the Internet and telling complete strangers.

In summary, to save everyone having to read back through pages of threads, Anita has claimed:

To have communicated telepathically with an unseen, mythical creature. (Apparently, some sort of European Bigfoot - EuroFoot, I'll call him.)

To confidently predict that she could walk into American Bigfoot territory, with a camera, and telepathically locate the creature, communicate with it, earn its trust, and, if she sensed it was safe, meet up with it.

To be able to connect mind to mind with beings, communicate with them, always know what to say and how they will respond, and how to win their trust. (Not sure if she means humans here - judging from this thread, I'm guessing not.)

To be able to perceive what creatures perceive and do, and to enjoy looking at the thoughts and perceptions of various animals, including frogs and vultures, who have especially beautiful thoughts. (Vultures? Who knew?)

Can observe the ghosts of dinosaurs, and perceive them as they really were (appearance, eating habits, mating rituals, etc) - and their appearances are always contrary to the beliefs and educated opinions of paleontologists worldwide.

To be able to perceive what others perceive from their point of view, and to feel what others are feeling.

To be able to communicate with angry ghosts, soothe them, and, apparently, leave them in a better mood, as well as irritate the hell out of some other ones.

To have physically connected with a ghost pushing her out of a chair, and others clinging to her and asking her for help.

To have seen the ghosts of a boy who drowned, Vikings, ancient homeless people, men attending a crematory, an old lady and her youthful lover, a non scary executioner and his medieval axe, and prisoners in the same castle.

Has woken up to find a ghost in her room.

Never sees ghosts without a friend present.

Has been the first to address the presence of a ghost.

Waits for friends to bring up the presence of a ghost.

To be able to see the past as it took place.

To confidently predict that she could visit haunted scenes across America as a psychic guide, and speak with the historical ghosts, and see the historical events as they happened there.

To confidently predict that she could visit the White House and see and communicate with the ghost of Abraham Lincoln.

To know that dogs and cats and animals can also see ghosts and perceive past events as they happened.

To see and feel and interact with a non material world that is superimposed on this material one.

She can solve crime scenes within seconds, even as a child.

She is the extraterrestrial incarnation of a white dwarf star near Arcturus (a belief she also alleged to the two webmasters of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe website, who posted in this thread to confirm that.) Her Arcturian origin in the basis for her abilities.


Now, for her "main" ability:

Via various posts:
Does not believe in her alleged ability.
Will not continue to believe in her alleged ability whatever the outcome of a test.
Will continue to have perceptions whatever the outcome of a test.
Does believe in her ability, has taken it for granted, and does not need confirmation of its authenticity. :confused:

Can detect chemicals without ill effect.
Can only detect chemicals sometimes.
Can only detect chemicals sometimes with apparent ill effects of nausea and headache.

Can detect ailments via photographs.
Can only sometimes detect ailments via photographs.
Can only sometimes detect ailments via photographs in real life, but not images over the Internet.

Can detect the health problems of celebrities over the television.
Can only sometimes detect the health problems of celebrities over the television.

Has no interest in sharing her ability with the public at large.
Is tempted to share her ability with the public at large.
Would like forum members to help her prepare a list of do's and dont's for sharing her ability with the public at large.
Would never share her ability for money.
Would like to have a radio show.

Her perceptions are based on vibrational algebra. Well, not mathematical algebra-more like peanut butter cup algebra.

She has shared examples of this algebra here which no one can find.
She hasn't learned the proper scientific terminology to describe it.
She will not share examples of this algebra here because she doesn't want them stolen.

Is interested in applying her concepts of vibrational aspects to conventional mathematics, but hasn't done it yet - probably because she hasn't studied maths.

The existing optical devices that could test her theories is secret.
The optical devices that could test her theories hasn't been built yet.
She is working on the design of those yet to be built optical devices, but those designs are secret, too.

Her theories are secret, and we can read about them in future scientific journals like everyone else.
Her theories were stolen and are now in the public domain.

She "forbids" involving her university in her study of her paranormal ability.
She has told three professors at her university of her ability.

She was, apparently, the victim of an unethical or absent minded professor.

Does not objectively chronicle her diagnoses, but she is always accurate.

Does not eliminate variables, but she is always accurate.
Does not eliminate variables, but her ability is not a result of cold reading or retained knowledge.
Or it might be a result of subconscious cold reading and/or retained knowledge.

Does not keep a journal of her medical perceptions, but always remembers them accurately and in detail.

Would like to explore whether she has synesthesia.
Her ability is remarkably similar to synesthesia.
She does have synesthesia. Not confirmed by a neurologist, but by an easily manipulated test over the Internet.

She has 'objectively' considered that she might be delusional, but doesn't consider that any of her behavior is consistent with delusions.

Only shares her abilities with family and "close" friends.
Shares her abilities with a man she met that day whom she knew would be a lifelong friend. Shares her abilities with two skeptics forums, a skeptics group, IIG, her existing website, three Professors, a "ghostly" website currently in development, a local paranormal society, and a future paranormal society.

Her claims are not "interfering" with her real life, even though she has posted thousands upon thousands of words here, in the other forum, and on her website, is pursuing a study based on one possibly delusional claim, and building a paranormal group and website based on other possibly delusional claims.

She can objectively self diagnose herself and be completely accurate.

Is the most extraordinary being (or extraterrestrial incarnation) to occupy the planet in the history of mankind, yet is relatively unimpressed with her abilities, and, despite having most of them all her life, was not interested in testing even one of them until now.


(And, somehow, I am not 'reliable' to discern whether she is delusional, because I have a treated personality disorder, and she isn't sure if you are 'serious' about her being delusional?)

The problem, as I see it, is twofold. Anita's behavior is escalating. She's sharing her claims with more and more people, and having to constantly manipulate her claims to fit the questions that arise. As well, as you said, she repeatedly has to back off, and change course to avoid hearing what she doesn't want to hear.

The second part of the problem is that, if she doesn't get help, and she continues spreading these claims even wider, she's going to run afoul of people who won't take the time to consider that she might be delusional. They will deem her a pathological liar. This is going to affect her friendships, her romantic life, and, more significantly, her professional life. She says it won't, but it's a very small world, word gets around fast, and the more attention she receives, the more she will crave, the more she will have to bend and manipulate her claims to fit, and the more fantastic her delusions will become. If there is one thing that most people cannot abide, it is being lied to. Delusional or not, what isn't true isn't true, and it won't matter if she is being deliberately deceptive. People have limits, and they do not like being played for fools.

Anita is on the road to disaster, and a whole lot of hurt and sorrow for herself and others.

Sounds like the night I lost my virginity.

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. :D
 
Last edited:
Not to be unkind, but I think most folks here are way past the point of believing anything she says.

Truer words have rarely been said. I lost my ability to believe anything in her claim way back at "extraterrestrial incarnation of a white dwarf star near Arcturus", and nothing since has made me any more inclined to believe her.
 
Watch out...

As you all know I am remarkable at remaining friendly and well-mannered throughout the many forms of personal insults and inaccurate nonsense that are thrown at me on this thread but this time, and not likely to happen again, the post I am replying to was just beyond all others in ridiculous false conclusions and utter nonsense that was expressed in the disguise of someone who is supposed to represent skepticism, objectivity, and a science-minded approach to paranormal inquiry.

Cuddles:
Your entire post #1198 is an insult against yourself as an alleged objective critical thinker disguised as a skeptic, and is tremendous violence against all that science stands for. I have consistently replied to a vast variety of nonsense in this thread and always in a friendly manner, but this time and for the first time it is impossible for me to do so. Your post is such a hideous composition of misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and incapability in reading the written word for what it actually says. Your post is an expression of your confusion and incompetence in following in a discussion.

Referring to your denial to let me use the word "perception" about my experience,
I'm sure you are upset. However, the problem still lies entirely with you. We are all speaking plain English, it is only your refusal to listen to anyone or accept any criticism that forces you to pretend otherwise.
Long before you stepped in, Ashles and I had a very long discussion where she concluded that I must use the word "perception" to describe my experience. So that is the word I've been using. Now here you come along with your very own vocabulary and attack me for using a word that was chosen by Ashles. You specificly said that the word "perception" would imply belief in the perceptions, when it was thoroughly discussed that "perception" would imply no belief in the perceptions. Refusal to listen? I listened, adopted the word "perception", and now I listen, and you want me to not say perception? I'm not pretending! You skeptics are collectively inconsistent in your definitions on terminology, and then you throw it at me! Of course I'm upset. I am once again criticized when I've done nothing wrong. Blame Ashles for choosing the word "perceptions". All I see is your refusal to read what I've actually said before you make statements about what I've said. :mad:
And you are in no way being bullied. If you genuinely feel that being confronted by reality is equivalent to bullying, I can only add my voice to those who ask you to seek professional help.
:mad: "Confronted by reality"? Yes, if "reality" means that you criticize me for something I wasn't responsible for, when it is all based on your misunderstandings. You need professional help because you seem to have some form of serious dyslexia that makes you get everything you read all mixed up, and you express schizotypal disorder by pretending you can contribute to critical thinking when clearly you can not.
I explained very clearly in the post you just replied to exactly why perceptions are not the same as objective reality. They may be simplified, distorted or completely false and disconnected from reality. Your problem is that despite, as someone else put it, paying lip service to the idea, you consistently refuse to acknowledge this point.
It was already established that use of the word "perceptions" does not imply that it had been established whether the perceptions are part of objective reality or only subjective to me. Talk to Ashles about this and read this thread from the very beginning before cutting in and pretending to be part of the discussions.
Sure, you say that you have agreed to use the word "perceptions" to make this clear, but you use it in a such a way that requires assuming that they are actually real.
I do no such thing. I've repeatedly clearly stated that the perceptions have had only apparent accuracy, and that I am prepared to encounter inaccurate perceptions on the study and tests since those are designed to reveal them better than everyday experience can.
The issue here is that you have no evidence at all that your perceptions have anything to do with the real world, and that you refuse to acknowledge this.
You are currently the most ridiculous poster on this thread. I've acknowledged time and time again that I have no formal evidence. Why don't you read this thread before you cut in in the middle and act like you know what I'm stating? Read the thread and stop lying about what I've said!
If you were truly interested in investigating things you would accept negative evidence as well as positive.
And I do accept it. I'm just saying that I can not conclude for or against the possibility that the strain below the sternum was not associated to the small intestine. The study and tests will not enable answers that are open for interpretation or unclear about accuracy. They'll be clear-cut yes/no questions with disregard to association to other possible symptoms.
Except that we have no evidence of any progress. As has been pointed out numerous times, you claim to have been investigating this for a long time, and to have had these perceptions for even longer. Yet you haven't even carried out the simplest of tests and actively run away from them when they are proposed.
Stop lying about me. No evidence of progress? Then how come I met with the local skeptics group? How come I concluded to have a study? How come I'm preparing the study? How come I had a survey done? All progress. All we see evidence for is your impatience and confusion. I have been investigating this since July 2007. Most of this time has been spent in a waiting game with the IIG West since that was what I thought I was supposed to do. And as soon as I met with the local skeptics group and they suggested that I have a study, I am now preparing to have a study. And on the contrary there are no "simplest of tests" since this claim concerns other people and their health and I will approach this very carefully. I have not run away from a simple test that would test my main claim. Stop lying and read what I've actually been saying and doing.
VisionFromFeeling said:
We are in no position to say that auras are not an accurate reflection of reality.
Cuddles said:
And it is statements like this that lead people to question your claims of education.
Whoa you've just made an idiot out of yourself! I never said that auras have been scientifically established or that I'd concluded whether auras are a physical reality or a human subjective experience. I'm saying that auras may be existing phenomena in spite of that primitive human perception and primitive human technology of detection instruments can not detect or prove their existence scientifically. What I said was that it is safe to assume that there still exist plenty of things in the real world that humans have not yet become able to prove, and that according to this auras may be real. This is called objectivity and openness and I would expect a scientist to hold this understanding.
We know very well that auras don't exist. We have equipment that can measure single photons of a huge range of energy, far more sensitive than any human perception ever could be, and auras simply aren't there. People who see them may have a form of synaesthesia or they may simply be hallucinating or delusional.
What if auras aren't made of photons? We don't know that.
VisionFromFeeling said:
Human perception is very limited and it is safe to assume that reality consists of much more than what humans or their built instruments are able to perceive or measure at this time.
Cuddles said:
It is not at all safe to assume this. In fact, it is incredibly stupid, especially when such an assumption apparently comes from someone who is studying for a physics degree.
Cuddles, you've just lost all respect and dignity in my eyes as an objective and valuable contribution to any kind of scientific inquiry. You say it is not safe to assume that the reality that is defined by human sensory perception and the reach of man-made technology would not include all actual reality that is out there. Several hundred years ago when human sensory perception was as limited as it is today and before the advent of today's technology, many aspects of today's "reality" were still undiscovered and unproven. It is absolutely safe to assume, meaning to expect, that the reaches of human reality is still not perfect today and that there is still more reality that hasn't been accessed. You call this a stupid assumption? That just makes you seem very stupid. Anyone studying a physics degree surely must be open to the fact that human spans of reality is an ever growing concept when new discoveries are made, and the real world still surely contains more left to be discovered. To assume that humans and their instruments have already acchieved perfect perception of reality is the most ridiculous garbage I've ever even heard. How pathetic of you.
Of course, what's particularly amusing is that you bring up the standard "human perception is limited" in response to criticism of your claims of extraordinary perception. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Of course I know the difference between standard general human perception and my subjective perceptions. Had I stated otherwise, then that would have been reason for amusement. The fact that you find what I did say amusing, is reason for amusement.
Yes we know. And as I pointed out in the post you are complaining about, and as many other people have also explained, it is exactly this insistence that is the problem. Until you admit that you have no evidence of this apparent accuracy,
You silly excuse of a skeptic! I've already stated many times before on this thread I've already admitted I have no formal evidence! I think you need to read my posts before you make claims about what I have and have not said, my dear imitation of a Skeptic. :)
and acknowledge that at least some of your "apparently accurate" anecdotes are in fact proven to be wrong, you are not going to get anywhere.
Which anecdotes were proven to be wrong?
This claim is in direct contradiction of the preceding paragraph, where you insist that your perceptions appear to be accurate.
O-M-G Cuddles, why are you even here? You haven't read any of what I've actually stated and posted have you? What I mean by apparent accuracy is for instance that a person agreed that they have the ailment that I perceived. Apparent accuracy already accounts for the possibility that it is not the case of actual accuracy, for instance if a person lied or was mistaken about their health. Any accuracy in my perceptions also does not imply that cold reading did not take place, or that it would have been the case of an ESP ability. When I insist that a perception had apparent accuracy, it sure did. Find out what that means before you argue about it.
I have not made any false assumptions about you.
Your post is composed of them.
Everything I have said is based on your own words and actions.
No, everything you've said is based on your misunderstanding of my words and actions.
Nothing has changed since this thread was started, or even since you started your webpage. You still have nothing, and you still refuse to admit this or accept criticism.
Since I started my website and this thread, I've made progress in the protocol negotiations with the IIG, come into contact with a local skeptics group, had a survey, am soon having a study, oh, and I've upgraded the style of the link buttons on my website. ;) I know I have no formal evidence, I've never refused to admit that and instead I've consistently stated it myself. I accept criticism, but I do not accept incorrect garbage from you.

Phew. There. Now I resume to my normal niceness. :p
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom