**skropenfield,**thanks for both articles, the one you have included in your post and the Russian study in pdf format. I encourage everybody to read the Russian pdf format article, it's worth it (look for the URL at the very end of skropenfield's post). The title of the Russian article is:

**“On the So-Called Alternative Vision or Direct Vision Phenomenon”**

N. P. Bekhtereva*, L. Yu. Lozhnikova**, S.G. Dan’ko**,

L. A. Melyucheva*, S. V. Medvedev 1 *and S. Zh. Davitaya***

* Institute of Human Brain, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia

** International Academy of Human Development, Moscow, Russia

*** International Academy of Human Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia

Received August 8, 2001

The article is quite interesting and it is a valid one. Therefore, it should stimulate new research initiatives in the field of the human brain and consciousness, since it seems clear there are still many more unknowns than certainties in this area.

However, I would like to point out that there are two important differences between the general approach of that type of studies (the Russian one) and the approach we propose with the Agnostic Method.

**First difference**

If you go to the very first page, third paragraph starting from the top, of the Russian article, it says:

*“This work is a strictly qualitative pilot study not pretending to discover any quantitative patterns…”*

The above paragraph indicates they have put emphasis on the “qualitative” aspects of their study, while we will put emphasis on the “quantitative” aspects of our study. Further more, the main strength of our study is pure mathematical numbers, or if you prefer, we could call it

**“raw mathematical power”.**Let me show you what I mean. If you go to Table 1 of the Agnostic Method, this is what it says:

The complete Table 1 is in Post #3, pag. 1 at link:

The complete Table 1 is in Post #3, pag. 1 at link:

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

The following is a brief excerpt of Table 1 (only a summary):

**1.-**"3 ordered words taken at random from a dictionary " (calculated on the base of only 10,000 words of a total of 59,000; 17%).

Probability of guessing by chance one time:

**1.e-12,**=

**0.000000000001**

(

**11 zeros**after the decimal point).

**2.-**"2 ordered words taken at random from a dictionary" (calculated on the base of only 10,000 words of a total of 59,000; 17%).

Probability of guessing by chance one time:

**1.e-8,**=

**0.00000001**

(

**7 zeros**after the decimal point).

**3.-**"Code with a mixture of 5 numbers and capital letters". Example: JF7AS.

Probability of guessing by chance one time:

**1.442e-8,**=

**0.00000001442**

(

**7 zeros**after the decimal point).

**5. -**"Cipher of the 5 random numbers”. Spanish lottery number "Cupon ONCE." Example: 78153

Probability of guessing by chance one time:

**1.e-5,**=

**0.00001**

(

**4 zeros**after the decimal point).

**7.-**"Two ordered cards from a deck" (40 cards).

Probability of guessing by chance one time:

**6.4e-4,**=

**0.00064**

(

**3 zeros**after the decimal point).

Note: If you make two experiments, the probability of guessing both of them is equal to the square number of guessing just one of the events one time. If you guess three times in a role, it will be elevated to the third power, 4 to the 4th… etc.

Let’s see only the example of the

**two words**from the dictionary:

**Probability of guessing by chance two times: (1.e-8)^2 = 1.e-16 = 0,0000000000000001**

(15 zeros after the decimal point).

(15 zeros after the decimal point).

**Probability of guessing by chance three times: (1.e-8)^3 = 1.e-24 = 0,000000000000000000000001**

(23 zeros after the decimal point).

(23 zeros after the decimal point).

Therefore, the main advantage of the system of the “words taken at random from a dictionary” (two or three words) is that its reliability from a mathematical point of view is much, much higher than other types of systems (Ex: cards, digits, etc.), simply because there are SO MANY words in a dictionary: around 59,000 words for a regular one volume dictionary. For security reasons, and in order to discard possible strange words and to stay on the safe side, we have applied a strong reduction factor and have calculated the above figures (points 1 and 2) based only on 10,000 words (17% of 59,000). Further more, if instead of picking up the words manually we would do it with a computer program, the base figure might be higher than 10,000 (we’ll have to see), and the reliability of the words method would also increase. Not to mention that with a computer program we could apply “military precision” to generate the random numbers to pick a totally random word. But we preferred to explain first the manual method so that it is easier for people to do home tests of their own abilities.

Also, it seems easier to be able to remember correctly two words (maybe three?) than to remember a complex digit with a mixture of letters and numbers, such as Q3R8W, at least for some projectors. I would personally prefer the words, because with the digits I think I could get confused easier. But it’s up to each person to decide what method he/she prefers.

In other words, the system of the “words from the dictionary” has a very high

**simplicity to reliability ratio.**

But we would like to hear your opinions. Maybe some projectors would prefer to go for the “Q3R8W system” and some other ones for the words? Please, what do you think about that?

**Second difference**

There are two main approaches to study these types of phenomenon:

**1)**Trying to learn “how” something works.

**2)**Trying to “verify if” something happens by using very precise measurements.

Our approach is not the first one, but the second one. For right now, and with our first type of experiment, we do not pretend to study nor understand how these OBE processes work. Therefore, we are not going to study EEG, how neurons work, how they connect to each other, the chemistry of the brain, etc. We are not going to do any of that for right now (maybe in the future, but not now).

All we are going to do now is trying to obtain very precise measurements of the differences in the mathematical probabilities of guessing by chance a random number, both in a “control group” without OBEs, as well as in a “subjects group” with OBEs.

So, our main concern right now is this one: Will the subjects group (who practice OBE) will be able to “see” the correct words (the real words) a significant enough number of times as compared to the control group (without OBE)?

We are not looking for perfect results. For instance:

**control group 0%, subjects group 100%.**No, we would be satisfied with something in the order, for instance, of: control group 2%, subjects group 30%, or 5%-60%, or

**4%-45%**...etc. Those types of results (more or less) will be sufficient to clearly show the anomaly. The higher we can get, the better, of course. But something in that order is good enough to begin with.

Let me put it this way:

**If you try to read the correct words, do you think you’ll be able to read them correctly around 3 times out of 10?**More or less, or 2, or 4 out of 10?

In summary, if the differences between the two groups are big enough (mathematically significant enough), we will have found a

**HUGE anomaly**that should not be there, and for which modern science does not have an answer and cannot deny it because it contradicts current physical knowledge and laws (see my previous posts).

By the way, we also need to clearly show that those mathematical differences are impossible to happen due to any known physical phenomenon, and that’s why we will take all sorts of security measures: make sure to place the target waaaaaaay outside of the physical visual reach of the subjects, double blind control groups, no possibility of doing tricks… no nothing, etc. For instance: an “artificial optical device”, such as a video camera, cannot do that (Ex: seeing something which is outside of its visual reach), so, the human eye (which from the stand point of modern medicine is just another “optical device”), “supposedly” cannot either.

Besides the thread we have in the Medicine sub-forum to talk about all these things, we have opened another thread to discuss specifically optical devices in the Physics Spanish Science forum (to compare biological with artificial optical devices), and physicists are thinking about it, but it is also clear cut: regular optical devices cannot do that, and they know it! This is the link:

**- ¿Puede un dispositivo óptico “ver” si le tapas la lente?**

http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=5740

For more details about the mathematical aspects of this issue, I wish you could see the comments of the professional mathematicians in the Spanish Math forums, because from a mathematical perspective, this is quite clear cut. Numbers don’t lie, and they know it. Let me give you a summary of what we mean:

In case OBE were only imaginary experiences, if the experiments were repeated the necessary amount of times, we should expect that the probabilities of guessing by chance between the two groups (control and subjects)

**should be about the same with very minor differences: the usual small statistical gap.**Neither group should guess random numbers by chance many more times than the other one in the long run. After many cycles, the probabilities of both groups should achieve a similar equilibrium. There is no reason why one group should get “significantly” ahead of the other one in the long run.

But if the results were very different (Ex: one group guessing MANY more times than the other one, and not sporadically, but in a consistent manner) that would imply a

**“big imbalance”**and a clear indication that something is not working the way it should, because that's not the way mathematical probabilities behave in the long run. Therefore,

**that would be the anomaly!**If there is a big imbalance, that means there is also an important cause which is causing that imbalance. And since we have already ruled out normal physical reasons for it (Ex: normal performance of regular optical devices, etc.), therefore, we would conclude there must be some type of phenomenon, unknown to current science, which is causing the imbalance. And that’s a big deal!

What I have just explained in the above paragraph is one of the

**key elements**of the Agnostic Method:

**the more “quality tests”**we do, the clearer we will be able to detect the anomaly in the behaviour of the mathematical probabilistic laws (in case there is one). In other words,

**as the number of good quality tests we do increases, the accuracy of the method will also increase.**

That’s why we would like to invite all of you to participate in the experiments, because the more people who participate in this study (considering they are experienced projectors who can read the “real” words), the more reliable the results will be. That’s why I put the example of the sand grains from the NASA web site: because

**this is a team effort.**

And talking about

**“experienced projectors”**we should point out another important consideration: for what we know, real letters and numbers may morph or be distorted if you look at them from the astral plane, so it would be essential that you have a good control holding up the physical scenario long enough and with good enough quality as to be able to read the “real words” and not the “false words.” That will

**avoid reporting “false positives”**(words that the projector thought were the “real” ones but they were not) and will increase the accuracy and the reliability of this method.

So, please, think about it, practice reading the correct words if you would like to collaborate in this experiment, and go for it!

If anybody would like to translate the conversation in the Math forums where professional mathematicians talk about all these issues, here it is (and especially the “dice example”):

**Leach, Math forum MIGUI:**http://foro.migui.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1119

**Hetzer, Math forum 100cia.com:**http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=4290&page=28&pp=10

On the contrary, if the differences between the two groups are

**NOT big enough**(not mathematically significant enough, no big imbalance), our method

**will not work,**because it will not have anything to hold onto. So, we would like to try and see what happens.

That’s why it is so important to know if experienced OBErs can read correctly those two words, and if the hints to read the words will help them any or not.

Thanks. qbeac.