Vision From Feeling

Status
Not open for further replies.
If something is not worth mentioning, do not mention it. Even just offering that "there were a few things I noticed that weren't worth mentioning" is self-contradictory. You just mentioned them, so how can they not be worth mentioning? This is science, not casual conversation. Nothing of value is gained by such a statement. The only reason to tell someone that something wasn't worth mentioning is if they ask you why you didn't mention something.
Hence my Analysis questions.

I want it to be agreed, or at least confirmed by Anita, what is considered a strength of answer that is considered significant either way.

I'm just wondering how many posts Anita will make without responding to this.

Oh and also the details of the 'survey' would be nice at some time. Especially now Anita has some time free this weekend.
 
After contacting a local mall asking to have the study there and being denied I then contacted the Park and Recreation Department about having the study in a public park or on the street and have now received a no for this also. I would like to note that several of you Forum Skeptics urged me to just go out there and do the study and not try to obtain permission all the while I remained careful and hesitant and I wanted to ensure that I receive specific permission before doing it. I said that I wanted to make sure just in case. And now we see that had I simply gone out into a public park and had my study I would have done something that goes against regulations.


Then you somehow worded your request wrongly. I've done some amount of studying on this sort of thing because I'm a sometimes street entertainer. What you're asking to do is protected under the free speech and peaceable assembly laws, the First Amendment to our US Constitution. You somehow set yourself up to be denied, Anita, again, because you do not want to actually find out that you're a miserable failure.

Do keep in mind that I am an international student and it is especially imperative that I not break any laws since *I might be sent home*.


Our First Amendment protects your right to speak freely and peaceably assemble in a situation like this, too.

Also my sense of morals are pretty high.


No. Not really. You're a liar. And if you don't know you are, if you truly don't realize you're a liar, then it goes back to the likelihood that you have some sort of debilitating mental health problem.

Take this anecdote as yet another reminder that sometimes when I insist on doing things my way and refuse to give in to everyone's suggestions, I might actually have good reasons for doing so.


Yes, a fine reason. As has been mentioned many times before in this thread, the reason you ignore everyone else's great advice, and instead choose to do all this in a way that totally sucks, your way, is because you do not want to actually find out that you're a miserable failure.

Since a location for the study has not been found, and don't you dare say that I didn't try, the study can not be held on this weekend of January 31 and February 1 and has been postponed until a location can be found. All other arrangements are ready.


You didn't try. You have, and you'll continue to pretend, build your own roadblocks, stall, lie, and otherwise prevent any effective study or test from ever being conducted because you do not want to actually find out that you're a miserable failure.

All documents relating to the study are still open for change and do suggest ways in which to improve them, to make the study more effective, as well as to make it more convenient for all of those involved.


No. You're not interested in actually making anything convenient or taking anyone's suggestions. And the only changing you might do will only be to make it more difficult for you to undertake the necessary examination of your fantasy.

Thank you.


You're welcome.
 
Oh Anita. You will never change, will you? You were told the mall would deny your request, and I had a very strong hunch the park would deny your request, also. After-all, we don't know how you worded your request; and for the park, no request was necessary at all.

The notion that you might be sent home is laughable. You're not even trying to fool us, are you? You're trying to fool yourself.

ANITA. SEE A PSYCHIATRIST!

EDIT:

Take this anecdote as yet another reminder that sometimes when I insist on doing things my way and refuse to give in to everyone's suggestions, I might actually have good reasons for doing so.

LMAO! My goodness. Was your post supposed to be some kind of a "I told you so!" kind of thing? All you've shown is that you're a manipulator, and a liar. You're fooling no-one, Anita! This is so pathetic.

You woo's are all the same, it's so frustrating. And I know you're a liar, because you lied in the synesthesia test. You do not have synesthesia. You are so crazy it's not even funny.
 
Last edited:
And to add, this study is not even a good idea! Why are you doing a fully-fledged study? This is mental.

If you're so sure you have this ability, merely demonstrate it to people. That's all you need to do to become a media sensation almost overnight! Your shield of "morality" is bogus - no-one buys it.

It would be immoral not to demonstrate this ability, considering it will change the world forever, and save possibly billions of lives, as well as propel Science into a new era! How "moral" is it to hold up Science, because of your worries that you won't get all the credit? Yeh, very moral. People are dying.

I mean Jesus! Post a video, get someone to back you up, anything! You don't have a leg to stand on for goodness sake - at least "psychics" have patients, and taped recordings.

There is something in your brain that is preventing you from finding out the truth. This is why I tend to believe you have serious psychological issues. Even if you're lying, that in itself would imply a serious psychological condition considering all the trouble you have gone through.

So, either way, you need some help. And don't even bother with the apologetics - you are as significant as the second coming of Jesus (for Christians) if what you're saying is true. But you know it's not - somewhere, deep down at least, you know you're a little girl who wants attention, and wants to feel special.

You have wasted so many peoples time, and you have ruined any possible reputation you might have had in the Scientific field (though, you cannot even think rationally so I highly doubt you would have had any chance there anyway). I'm just disgusted.
 
Last edited:
You somehow set yourself up to be denied, Anita, again, because you do not want to actually find out that you're a miserable failure.

You're not a failure just because you don't have sooper powers. you're just a normal human being. (Of course, in your own mind you might consider it a failure, but that's a different thing). GeeMack's comments are correct otherwise -- Anita's backing herself into a corner.
 
Well, I filled out Anita’s “Volunteer’s Health Form”. :boggled:

56 check-off boxes, 54 of which apply to me (male).

(BTW, Anita, why are you excluding males from the “breast implant" category? Ever hear of transsexuals (I’ll give you a hint, they’ve been mentioned in this thread :cool:)? Don’t my pectoral implants count? :cry1)

I checked 31 boxes! I’m relatively healthy, don’t see a doctor (much), and don’t pay much attention to minor discomforts. I haven’t been injured alot, and I’m rarely sick. I’m what most people would call healthy, and I still checked 57% of the possibilities! :jaw-dropp

Everybody is going to select head, throat, upper and lower abdomen, and ‘stomach’ pain.

Everybody is going to select cough, phlegm, constipation, diarrhea, and nausea.

Almost everyone over 50 is going to add neck, shoulder, wrist, hip, and knee pain.

They’re also going to add bad hearing, dizziness, anxiety, cold hands and feet, and numbness.

Since you won’t count anything you don’t ‘see’ as a miss, all you have to do is play it safe, and pick three things that are ‘sure bets’ for each subject. You may get a (very) few wrong, but you’ll be “amazingly accurate”. :wave1

Here’s a helpfully little hint – ask “Do you need reading glasses?” (almost everybody over 50 does). You’ll get a lot of hits with that one. :mgduh

Anita's powers are AMAZING!

She can tell that you've had the health problems that everyone always has!!11!!eleventy!!1! :D :D :D

ETA: Have ya seen any more 'bony' adam's apples in your wanderings? I'm thinking that maybe it might be some kinda local mutation or sumthin'. Ag chemicals or somesuch. Ya never know. maybe ya oughta contact the local health department. Lives could be at stake. I mean, I know you're modest and all, and you'd never give out health advise, but geez, you've never been wrong! Just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
The bony Adam's apple reminded me of something some pages ago, about seeing cartilaginous scars. As far as I know scars are collagen and skin, and not cartilage (the stuff ears, noses, and adams apples are made of).
Does anyone know if scars can form cartilage?
 
<snip> I then contacted the Park and Recreation Department about having the study in a public park or on the street and have now received a no for this also.
I don't believe you contacted either the mall or the public park. However, I'll focus solely on the public park.

You've claimed you send them a letter...I assume you can post this, and the Park and Recreation Departments reply? From what you have described, IF you've done as claimed they have denied you rights as guaranteed under the Constitution and have a legal case against them.
 
The bony Adam's apple reminded me of something some pages ago, about seeing cartilaginous scars. As far as I know scars are collagen and skin, and not cartilage (the stuff ears, noses, and adams apples are made of).
Does anyone know if scars can form cartilage?
Looks like it can, but what do I know?
http://www.oakleafmedical.com/hv/2004_aut/aut2004_cartilage.htm
The cartilage that grows back is not normal hyaline cartilage, but rather fibrocartilage or scar cartilage. It is inferior to the original cartilage, but it can help restore joint cushioning, reduces pain and improves function
 
Dear Wonderful Skeptics,
After contacting a local mall asking to have the study there and being denied I then contacted the Park and Recreation Department about having the study in a public park or on the street and have now received a no for this also. I would like to note that several of you Forum Skeptics urged me to just go out there and do the study and not try to obtain permission all the while I remained careful and hesitant and I wanted to ensure that I receive specific permission before doing it. I said that I wanted to make sure just in case. And now we see that had I simply gone out into a public park and had my study I would have done something that goes against regulations. Do keep in mind that I am an international student and it is especially imperative that I not break any laws since *I might be sent home*. Also my sense of morals are pretty high. Take this anecdote as yet another reminder that sometimes when I insist on doing things my way and refuse to give in to everyone's suggestions, I might actually have good reasons for doing so.

Since a location for the study has not been found, and don't you dare say that I didn't try, the study can not be held on this weekend of January 31 and February 1 and has been postponed until a location can be found. All other arrangements are ready.


Have you thought about trying here:


Botanical Gardens


It seems a convenient, student-friendly location and no permission will be required from Mecklenburg County to conduct activities there.
 
Last edited:
A Thought on Nobel Prizes...

I was discussing some things from this thread with Himself, and he offered the insight that, even if the AbilityTM is genuine, Anita can't win the Nobel for having it...unless, again in his peerless terms, "It makes the Israelis and the Palestinians decide to join hands and sing 'Kumbaya', when she could get the Peace Prize."

That is, having a preternatural ability, being able to see into the very cells, etc. is not a scientific advance in and of itself. So having someone else document her ability is not giving them a Nobel she could get if she researched herself. It is possible, however, that with her AbilityTM documented, she could learn some things about specific diseases or aspects of functioning in the human body that would be Nobel eligible. Similarly, if she can convert Vibrational AlgebraTMinto actual calculations, that might be a valuable contribution to physics; but the ability itself, is not.

So the argument that she needs to decide who to 'give' a Nobel to is completely irrelevent.

Thanks to my wonderful husband for pointing this out! Just sharing, Miss Kitt
 
I was discussing some things from this thread with Himself, and he offered the insight that, even if the AbilityTM is genuine, Anita can't win the Nobel for having it...unless, again in his peerless terms, "It makes the Israelis and the Palestinians decide to join hands and sing 'Kumbaya', when she could get the Peace Prize."

That is, having a preternatural ability, being able to see into the very cells, etc. is not a scientific advance in and of itself. So having someone else document her ability is not giving them a Nobel she could get if she researched herself. It is possible, however, that with her AbilityTM documented, she could learn some things about specific diseases or aspects of functioning in the human body that would be Nobel eligible. Similarly, if she can convert Vibrational AlgebraTMinto actual calculations, that might be a valuable contribution to physics; but the ability itself, is not.

So the argument that she needs to decide who to 'give' a Nobel to is completely irrelevent.

Thanks to my wonderful husband for pointing this out! Just sharing, Miss Kitt

Bravo to Himself, and MK for bringing it up. :)


M.
 
Ashles:
I don't know how to make the results of a study that is based on these questionnaires into a quantitative conclusion or how to construct a point scale for what constitutes a "pass" or "fail". Since it is a study it has other objectives. I do expect that a non-ability would become "clear enough". And if a non-ability were to slip through and pass this study then if a second study is done the second study would implement a more test-like procedure than the first and I expect that a non-ability would be revealed at some stage. The purpose of this study is primarily to define the boundaries of the paranormal claim. What kind of ailments? How often would I be expected to detect them when they are there? Under what test conditions can the perceptions remain?

I was hoping that a non-ability would be very apparent in the study and the questions about "extent" and "when" are more for "educational purposes" than for point purposes. But here is a suggestion from me of how we might for instance get an appreciation for the level of accuracy. If the scale on extent goes from 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, where no is 0, then how about if every discrepancy of one units represents an error worth 20%. So when the answers between volunteer and claimant match precisely there is 100% correlation given for that particular question. If one answers 4 and the other answers 5 then the correlation was 80%. When one answers 3 and one answers 5 then the correlation was 60%. When one answers 2 and one answers 5 the correlation was 40%. If one answers 0/no and the other answers 4 the correlation was 20%. If one answers 0/no and the other answers 5 then there is 0% correlation.

This is obviously a flawed system I believe but perhaps this is one way of interpreting the system. If a total of 100 questions were checked for then the maximum total number of points is 100. When the correlation of a question were 80% then 0.8 points were received for that question. Adding the total number of points received from correlation, and then dividing the total number of points acchieved by the total number of points possible and multiplying by a hundred, we get the total percentage of correlation in this particular study. However do we know how to interpret the percentage value of total correlation?

It is a study and not a test. But according to my suggestion, here is the answer to your question,

Volunteer: N Anita: N
Analysis: 100% H

Volunteer: N Anita: 1
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: N Anita: 2
Analysis: 60% H

Volunteer: N Anita: 3
Analysis: 40% H

Volunteer: N Anita: 4
Analysis: 20% H

Volunteer: N Anita: 5
Analysis: 0% H

Volunteer: 1 Anita: N
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 1
Analysis: 100% H

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 2
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 3
Analysis: 60% H

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 4
Analysis: 40% H

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 5
Analysis: 20% H

Volunteer: 2 Anita: N
Analysis: 60% H

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 1
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 2
Analysis: 100% H

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 3
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 4
Analysis: 60% H

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 5
Analysis: 40% H

Volunteer: 3 Anita: N
Analysis: 40% H

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 1
Analysis: 60% H

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 2
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 3
Analysis: 100% H

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 4
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 5
Analysis: 60% H

Volunteer: 4 Anita: N
Analysis: 20% H

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 1
Analysis: 40% H

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 2
Analysis: 60% H

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 3
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 4
Analysis: 100% H

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 5
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: 5 Anita: N
Analysis: 0% H

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 1
Analysis: 20% H

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 2
Analysis: 40% H

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 3
Analysis: 60% H

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 4
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 5
Analysis: 100% H

There are obviously flaws in this system and this is not a system I intend to use. I am mainly intending to get a general estimate of what the correlation might be, and yes that would leave it open for interpretation. The main objective is to find out more about the correlation and type of ailments and to try out test procedures meanwhile expecting that a non-ability could become apparent. For instance I do not agree with receiving 20% when I say N and the volunteer said 4. But I don't know. It is more of a conceptual study than a point-scale test.

Perhaps this kind of point system works for pain and other ailments that occur to a level of extents, but for clearly yes/no questions I think it would be wiser to have a 100% or a 0% correlation for such questions, since one either has had an appendectomy or they haven't and there is no extent in between.

As for the 2nd column that asks for most of them when the ailment was last perceived this is so that I can estimate whether I only perceive recent ailments or how back my perceptions might reach. It is a study. If it were a test I would see plenty of difficulties with it, but for study purposes I intend to learn a great deal from the procedure of the study.
 
Last edited:
That is, having a preternatural ability, being able to see into the very cells, etc. is not a scientific advance in and of itself. So having someone else document her ability is not giving them a Nobel she could get if she researched herself. It is possible, however, that with her AbilityTM documented, she could learn some things about specific diseases or aspects of functioning in the human body that would be Nobel eligible. Similarly, if she can convert Vibrational AlgebraTMinto actual calculations, that might be a valuable contribution to physics; but the ability itself, is not.

So the argument that she needs to decide who to 'give' a Nobel to is completely irrelevent.

I'm gonna have to disagree with Himself on this one. If Mello and Fire can win for "their discovery of RNA interference - gene silencing by double-stranded RNA" then I think Anita could win for discovering the human body's ability to download Vibrational Information™ and create 3D models. Now, if she simply has a mutation then no big deal. You don't get an award for having a third nipple.

Her Vibrational Algebra™ could open up a whole new area in physics and chemistry. With this ability she has said that she has ideas for curing cancer and treating those with flesh eating bacteria. If those pan out, I think the Nobel might be in order. If she lets some scientist get his or her grubby hands on testing her ability, she'll lose control of what comes afterwards.

I hate to play into her fantasies, but there is some logic to it. But as I explained to her more than once, no scientist will take seriously any studies where the same person is the subject as well as the designer and conductor of a test.

And, of course, I have told her numerous times that she possesses no abilities whatsoever, so who cares?

Thanks to my wonderful husband for pointing this out! Just sharing, Miss Kitt

Husband??? What's with the "miss" thing? :D
 
Anita, please clarify something. I want to make sure I understand you correctly.
Volunteer: N Anita: 4
Analysis: 20% H

If I say I have no pain in my right arm and you say that you think on a scale of 1 to 5 that my pain is at level 4, that counts as you having a hit of 20%? Did I read that correctly?
 
<snip>
There are obviously flaws in this system and this is not a system I intend to use. I am mainly intending to get a general estimate of what the correlation might be, and yes that would leave it open for interpretation. The main objective is to find out more about the correlation and type of ailments and to try out test procedures meanwhile expecting that a non-ability could become apparent. For instance I do not agree with receiving 20% when I say N and the volunteer said 4. But I don't know. It is more of a conceptual study than a point-scale test.

Perhaps this kind of point system works for pain and other ailments that occur to a level of extents, but for clearly yes/no questions I think it would be wiser to have a 100% or a 0% correlation for such questions, since one either has had an appendectomy or they haven't and there is no extent in between.

As for the 2nd column that asks for most of them when the ailment was last perceived this is so that I can estimate whether I only perceive recent ailments or how back my perceptions might reach. It is a study. If it were a test I would see plenty of difficulties with it, but for study purposes I intend to learn a great deal from the procedure of the study.


Dear whoever you are, your plans look more and more like a gambler about to attempt to beat the "house." It's been tried before, and exposed before. What makes you think you'll succeed where all others have failed?


M.
 
I don't know how to make the results of a study that is based on these questionnaires into a quantitative conclusion or how to construct a point scale for what constitutes a "pass" or "fail". Since it is a study it has other objectives. I do expect that a non-ability would become "clear enough".
Thank you for respononse.

Before I make any coments about your analysis system, surely you must have some specific idea of what would constitute falsification.

If you cannot describe this then at least one of your stated goals:
In the case there is no ability or skill in reading health information by looking at people, neither a paranormal skill or a cold reading skill, then the goal is to falsify such a non-ability at this stage of investigation so that elaborate tests need not be arranged for later on
Is impossible to achieve with this test.

Thus this goal (which you will note I supported previously) should be removed from the list of study goals.

Also for a specific ailment what performace do you consider non-significant?
At the moment your response seems to indicate you only consider a Volunteer 5, Anita N reponse or a Volunteer N, Anita 5 response entirely non-significant?
Is that correct?
 
Please enter H (for Hit), M (for Miss) or ? (for Undetermined) by each Analysis to indicate how you would view that set of compared answers.

Anita, why go to the trouble of writing such a long post without actually answering Ashles' request?

You have not shown us what combination of subject and viewer answers you would count as a hit and which you would count as a miss.

Unless you are saying that every possible combination counts as a hit in which case how could a non ability ever be revealed?


Volunteer: N Anita: 5
Analysis: 0% H


Bolding mine. This states that, If you detect a problem which the subject has categorically stated that they do not have, you will count it as a hit.​
 
Anita, I don't understand how to fill out your form when it comes to the time periods.

I am nauseous right now. What do I circle?
Now
Past Week
Month
Year
Longer

I ask because it's not clear if the time periods are mutually exclusive as in:
Only at this moment
Not at this moment, but within the last 7 days including today
Not in the last week but within the last 30 days
Not within the last 30 days but within the last year
Not within the last year but at some point in my life

Suppose I was nauseous three days ago, six months ago and two years ago. What should I circle?
Now
Past Week
Month
Year
Longer

Then, of course, how does this tie into how you judge the results? For example, if you say I am nauseous now, what happens if I say I was nauseous in the past year? Is that a hit? What, if anything, would that tell you about your abilities?

How about if you circle Month and I circle Now, Past Week, Year, and Longer? What does that mean? What does that tell you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom