Vision From Feeling

[Jonquill]

You can't climb Mount Everest if you refuse to entrust your luggage to the sherpas.

 

[nathan]

How the hell can someone be pregnant on a scale of 1 to 5?

Recent events appear to indicate one can be pregnant on a scale of 0 to 8 ...

 

[Akhenaten]

Vision from Feeling defines "A little bit pregnant":

Hokulele:

I haven't posted the health form yet, but not all questions come with a scale of extent associated with them. For pregnancy, it then asks how far along is she, "few days", "month", "2-5 months", "6-9 months" and the volunteer circles the option that best fits.

So now we know. I notice that only four levels are listed, and have to wonder if a "1" on this scale indicates "soon-almost".

The question that asks about removed organs then asks "kidney", "gall bladder", "appendix", and also without asking for "the extent of removal".

This is a shame because I was looking forward to reading the responses of the many volunteers who would report 100% kidney removal.

Vasectomy asks no additional questions.

Rightly so! Nobody likes an inquisitive vasectomy.

So it depends on the particular ailment what is asked after that. I will post the health form once it is finalized and you will all be able to critique on it. I'm glad you brought that up Hokulele.

Otherwise you'd have to continue pretending that it hadn't been brought up numerous times already by The Meanies_VfF



ETA: @ nathan

Good one.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

We should create the VfF drinking game. Every time she says "ESP hasn't been falsified", you take a drink. Every time she claims someone is preventing her from doing a study / test, take a drink. The list could be quite long.

Thash a great ideah, SkeptickCanoook! Jush wunnerful!

 

[Agatha]

Flippin 'eck. Go see a psychiatrist, Anita; your posts are rapidly losing touch with reality.

 

[Akhenaten]

I saw the sign
Life is demanding without understanding
I saw the sign and it opened up my eyes
I saw the sign

*The Sign - Ace of Base


And here it is:

Paranormal Investigation

A person claiming to be able to see
normally undetectable health information in a person
- just by looking at them!

Volunteers needed 18 years and older
Your participation is entirely anonymous
Come see us for more information

​

A page with The Sign_VfF on it.



* A Swedish group. What did they know in 1993?

 

[Miss_Kitt]

VFF: I wish to deal with some very specific issues from your recent post.

Meanwhile I still contend that the...perceptions of organs and tissue or of pain that I perceive when I see other people are on the same level as other impressions that form on their own in people's minds due to other things and association. Like when you look at a food and perceive as if you could taste it, or when you hear a familiar music you perceive the image of a memory, while that taste and that image are not as clear as what you perceive for real and you maintain a clear distinction between what is perceived directly from the outside world around you and those that appear merely in your own mind.

bolding in this and subsequent quotes mine

You have repeatedly stated that you think everyone has thoughts, images or music that they can't control interjecting into their minds. What basis do you have for this?
When I look at a piece of fried chicken (but can't smell it) I don't "taste" it, though I may remember that I like fried chicken. (When I can smell it, of course, I can nearly taste it because the majority of gustatory sensation is scent, not flavor.) If I hear a song that was my ex-husband's favorite, I may think of him, but I don't visualize him. To try to reconstruct a memory at that level requires focus and concentration, trying to resurrect it. Why do you say that "everyone" has these pseudo-real perceptions intruding into their thoughts?

I realize that many people experience association to other things all the time in their life, seeing or feeling things around them produces automatic association that make us feel or see other things, and these are the kind of things that most of us keep private and have no reason to express to others.

Another example of your supposition that other people experience "3-D, rotatable" models of, say, parties they went to. No? But your Perceptions meet that description. You are calling very different mental activity analogous.

Now, on to misrepresentations and outright lies:

I am fully prepared to accept the results of the investigation. My objective is to find out the truth behind the perceptions and their actual accuracy. I am prepared to find out that the actual accuracy is not after all as high as the accuracy has appeared to be in the past. For instance people might have been lying to me or simply mistaken about their health leading to a false impression of correlation but not due to me.

These two bolded sentences cannot both be true. If you are prepared to accept that the actual accuracy is not high, you must be open to the possibility that self-deception, faulty memory, selection bias and other issues that would indeed be due to you. Failing to include your own contributions to the perceived results is failing to seek the truth. I'll put this next statement in big type:
Not all systemic testing errors are deliberate, even though the tester may be responsible for them.
Your refusal to blind your 'study' protocols to any contribution unintentional bias on your part might make to apparent success is one of the things the skeptics here have been consistently calling you on. Yet you ignore them.

From the way in which I have conducted this investigation so far I see no reason for concern for my mental well-being. I have contacted two skeptics groups and taken in all of their advice and been fully conforming to their suggestions regarding how a test of my claimed experience should take place. And according to the suggestions of these skeptics I am now conducting a study into my experience.

The two bolded statements are demonstrably not true. You modified UncaYimmy's protocol into something that he has repeatedly stated is not his design and that he does not want his name associated with. You have ignored, pooh-poohed, belittled, or denied the validity of or need for, numerous suggestions of what and how to test. It is within your rights to design your own "study" or "test" protocol; but to say you are "fully conforming" is just a bald-faced lie. Contacting a couple of skeptic forums (in USA and the UK) and taking what scraps of comment you think can be construed to support you is not "taking all of their advice", nor is your proposed study according to skeptics' suggestions. That's baloney, Anita.

I have noticed no delusional behavior on my part. And by the way, I did not make two incorrect perceptions on the recent study with one of the skeptics ... A lot of the upset on this thread comes, I believe, from the deliberate intent to find something negative against me and from actual misinterpretation of what was said and done on my part.

Please note how the unbolded portion of the quote contradicts the bolded statement. When there are, say, 15 people pointing out that--and how--you made incorrect perceptions in your study, and you vigorously deny it, that's certainly not rational. I can see that you have not countered the arguments of those who demonstrated that they were incorrect perceptions. Repeating the same rationale over and over--sometimes by the paragraph--when it has already been demonstrated to be faulty is not something scientists, or reasonable people, do.

I am not a psychologiest, but I know that one of the things about delusional states is that the person cannot tell they're delusional. So statements like the first one are useless. What you could do, is go talk to a counselor at the health service of your school, and share your Perceptions and the frustrating experiences you have had on this Forum with them. If the counselor says, "No, you're fine, they're just out to get you," that would be important information. But that's having a trained professional look at you, not looking in the mirror.

By the way, Thank You for altering your website as I requested. Since the request was public, I think the thanks should be, too.

Just my thoughts, as usual, MK

 

[Ravenwood]

I have been following this thread from the beginning, and several things early on bothered me about the claim involved (full disclosure: I was one of the guys involved in Achau Ngyuen's attempt at the MDC. I was the one who worked with him to refine his claim & developed the protocol. You would be amazed at how hard it was to get him to try the test protocol as a dry run before taking the challenge, in fact, he never did test his ability while I was working with him, just went & did the preliminary & then blamed his receiver for not trying hard enough when he failed...)Everything I really want to say has pretty much been said, Unca Yimmy, you are a far better man than I, I would have bailed out long ago. VFF, you won't heed this, because you don't want to hear it, but go get some help. Seriously. This thread is a flaming wreck of you strapping warp drives to the goalposts & careening throughout the milky way while people spend far more time than they should have trying to help you. A lot of people have given you really good advice. Listen to it...(don't bother replying, you have been dropped into my ignore box. Say hello to Mayday while you're in there...)

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Dear Skeptics, please turn your attention away from the personal criticism for a while and place your energy and skills in something productive that will lead to a non-ability being falsified sooner, which is when we can all celebrate for a job well done...

Just curious, how much longer are you going to continue your scam?

 

[Ashles]

Dear Skeptics, please turn your attention away from the personal criticism for a while and place your energy and skills in something productive that will lead to a non-ability being falsified sooner, which is when we can all celebrate for a job well done...

Anita I have a specific question regarding this study. Since you clearly intend to use the scale despite all our best advice there is one thing you can do to make it more useful as a tool.
If you respond to this it will really help later on.

As far as I can gather you have a list of ailments which you will ask if the volunteers have
If they say they don’t have it I will refer to this response as ‘N’

If they do have the ailment they rate the extent 1 – 5 (5 being the most)

So I will make a list of all the possible permutations of responses and your answers.
I will do it across two posts for ease.

What I would request is that you describe how you would judge the relative accuracy of each set. This has, as I’m sure you would agree, been open to interpretation before (as we clearly have not agreed on the relative success regarding your results for Wayne).
Please mark how you would personally consider the accuracy of each combination of responses by entering H (Hit/Accurate response), M (Miss), ? (Undetermined)

For example, in the following scenario (in which the Volunteer put that he did suffer from a specific ailment and he rated it a ‘4’ and you perceived he suffered it at a level of ‘3’), if you think the following set of responses would be a Hit

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 3
Analysis:

Then put an H under it:

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 3
Analysis: H

So if you could just take a couple of minutes to rate each of the following combinations it would be greatly appreciated and reduce later confusion. (You have spend considerable time responding to issues you see as peripheral to the actual study, so I hope you will be able to find time to respond to this which deals exclusively with helping analyse the results of your study – this should not take long,).

To help I have already entered the ones in which both your answers and the volunteers match exactly as H (for Hit) as I think everyone would agree that would be considered a Hit.
(Disclaimer- For the purposes of this I am not discussing how much weight should be actually allocated to Hits where both Volunteer and Anita put N)

 

[Ashles]

Anita. please enter H, M or ? by each Analysis to indicate how you would view that set of compared answers.

Volunteer: N Anita: N
Analysis: H

Volunteer: N Anita: 1
Analysis:

Volunteer: N Anita: 2
Analysis:

Volunteer: N Anita: 3
Analysis:

Volunteer: N Anita: 4
Analysis:

Volunteer: N Anita: 5
Analysis:

Volunteer: 1 Anita: N
Analysis:

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 1
Analysis: H

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 2
Analysis:

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 3
Analysis:

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 4
Analysis:

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 5
Analysis:

Volunteer: 2 Anita: N
Analysis:

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 1
Analysis:

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 2
Analysis: H

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 3
Analysis:

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 4
Analysis:

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 5
Analysis:

Volunteer: 3 Anita: N
Analysis:

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 1
Analysis:

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 2
Analysis:

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 3
Analysis: H

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 4
Analysis:

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 5
Analysis:

Volunteer: 4 Anita: N
Analysis:

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 1
Analysis:

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 2
Analysis:

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 3
Analysis:

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 4
Analysis: H

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 5
Analysis:

Volunteer: 5 Anita: N
Analysis:

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 1
Analysis:

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 2
Analysis:

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 3
Analysis:

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 4
Analysis:

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 5
Analysis: H

 

[Belz...]

I contacted the representative of a mall

Yeah, heaven forbid you'd actually contact real scientists.

 

[Belz...]

For those of you who have expressed concern for my mental well-being, I can only thank you since I presume that it was done out of caring and with my best interest in mind, and also I need to seriously think about what reasons have emerged to make you feel this way.

Don't think about it. You are not qualified to reach a conclusion. See a professional, dammit.

Thank you for caring. Please let's wait for the results of the study which will clearly state what is going on, then let's see how I respond to the conclusions that can be drawn based on the results.

No, that's not how it works, and you know it. You are hopeless.

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:

Again, this post is so manipulatively disingenuous and dishonest that I have neither the patience nor the heart to respond to it any further.

I told you! I knew it!

Sigh. You told us what, Anita? You knew what?

 

[Reno]

Sigh. You told us what, Anita? You knew what?

*oils mouse scroll wheel in preparation for a 19,000 word post.

 

[Akhenaten]

Thank you for caring. Please let's wait for the results of the study which will clearly state what is going on, then let's see how I respond to the conclusions that can be drawn based on the results.

No, that's not how it works, and you know it. You are hopeless.

Unless one were planning to conduct a sham study in order to be able to rationalise to oneself that this whole thing had been conducted scientifically. Maybe we shall see that the study reveals "No Ability" after all, and one can begin glossing over the whole affair.

One may not yet realise that there isn't sufficient glossy matter in the Universe to accomplish this feat.

 

[desertgal]

*oils mouse scroll wheel in preparation for a 19,000 word post.

Stay tuned for another episode of "Cooking My Own Goose With Incoherent Babble, Vision For Feeling Style."

 

[treadmore]

Totally unrelated, except an actual scientific instance of "vision from feeling."

 

[Old man]

And by the way, I did not make two incorrect perceptions on the recent study with one of the skeptics. I clearly concluded at the end of the viewing that I found no health problems, that all I felt was the adam's apple and a tired left shoulder, both to an extent that I deemed too insignificant to even mention as an ailment. A lot of the upset on this thread comes, I believe, from the deliberate intent to find something negative against me and from actual misinterpretation of what was said and done on my part.

“I did not make two incorrect perceptions…”

True. You made THREE. And, unlike Locknar, I’m using YOUR OWN RULES (i.e. I’m not ‘counting’ the ONE major problem that could have impressed us). You made 13 guesses, and the ONLY one you got ‘right’ was glaringly obvious.

Why can you not admit that?

I am in fact trying to falsify my claim before getting overly excited about testing or proving a paranormal claim. I placed myself into a room full of skeptics and willingly agreed to demonstrate my skill with one of the skeptics and made myself fully available to produce incorrect perceptions but none came about - since the man was perfectly healthy!.

The fact that Wayne is “perfectly healthy” In no way affects the misses you made.

 

[desertgal]

I think the ailments on your list are too ambiguous, who doesn't suffer from cold feet and confusion at times or is sometimes constipated or cough a bit.

Not to mention "old fractures". She just had a reading with a guy who had suffered a "severed diaphragm' (her words), and she missed that-old fracture and scar-completely. That surely reduces the chance of her detecting that Billy broke his arm when he was 12. Why even include it?