Messages

[skropenfield,]

Hi 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:
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).

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

[1) To try to maximize the credibility of the speaker.2) To try to minimize the subjectivity of the matter. 3) To try to maximize viewing figures.]

Hi everybody, well, there are several other things I would like to say to complete my argument about a "possible good path" that could help or lead many, many, many people to the top of the mountain so that they will be able to smell the roses too.

In summary, the general idea is quiet simple. All we would have to do is the following:

1) To try to maximize the credibility of the speaker.
2) To try to minimize the subjectivity of the matter.
3) To try to maximize viewing figures.

How could we do each one of those things? Why would it be important to do each one of those things? Well, I would like to add a few further explanations I have in mind about it, but I hope the general idea is already easier to see. In future posts I will give you some more data and information about it.

Now then, there are several important elements in this idea, and one of them, not the only one, would be "the famous two words" (or similar random elements). I'll be glad to hear your comments about that.

I would also like to add that I have already contacted several important researches on this field (Ex: Dr. Jeff Long from the NDERF, Dr. Pim van Lommel, Dr. Bruce Greyson, etc., etc.), and some of them have already told me they are quite interested in this experiment and will be willing to help. I am very sure the confidentiality of the projector will be guaranteed if he/she wishes to remain anonymous. With regards to ourselves, we will proceed with the Spanish experiments to try to reach Level 3 validation. Our projector is confident the correct words can be read.

Please, think about it, and also think about the example of the sand grains from the NASA web site (Post #4, pag. 2 of this thread). This is a team effort because the mountain is high and there are many people waiting to smell the roses.

Thanks. qbeac.

P.S. For more details on the Agnostic Method and the hints to read the words, see Post #4, pag.1:
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE AGNOSTIC METHOD (Hints: section 2):
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

[- List of scientific journals:]

Hello everybody,
Hello BillionNamesofGod,

The purpose of this post is simply to give a list of definitions of different concepts taken from the Wikipedia. I believe these definitions could help us with this debate. If you wish, please, just take a quick look at them and then we will continue with the debate.

- List of scientific journals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals#General_science

- Impact Factor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor
Brief excerpt: "Impact Factor is a measure of importance of scientific journals."

- Page view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_views
Brief excerpt: "A Page view is generally defined as a request to load a single page of an Internet site."

- Prime time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_time
Brief excerpt: "Prime time is the block of time with the most viewers and is generally where television networks and local stations reap much of their advertising revenues."

- Nielsen Ratings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Ratings
Brief excerpt: "Nielsen's ratings calculation, also called Cume Rating (or "Reach"), measures the number of unique viewers, listeners or more generally households, of a tv or radio program in a particular time period during a week."

- Advertising: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising
Brief excerpt: "The TV commercial is generally considered the most effective mass-market advertising format and this is reflected by the high prices TV networks charge for commercial airtime during popular TV events. The annual Super Bowl football game in the United States is known as much for its commercial advertisements as for the game itself, and the average cost of a single thirty-second TV spot during this game has reached $2.3 million (as of 2004)...(...)"

"... advertising is the paid communication by which information about the product or idea is transmitted to potential consumers."

"In general, advertising is used to convey availability of a "product" (which can be a physical product, a service, or an idea) and to provide information regarding the product. This can stimulate demand for the product, one of the main objectives of advertising. More specifically, there are three generic objectives of advertisements : communicate information about a particular product, service, or brand (including announcing the existence of the product, where to purchase it, and how to use it), persuade people to buy the product, and keep the organization in the public eye (called institutional advertising).

- Advertising techniques:

(Note from qbeac: there are many different advertising techniques, but I will just underline one of them: testimonials and appeal to authority)

"* Testimonials: Advertisers often attempt to promote the superior quality of their product through the testimony of ordinary users, experts, or both. "Three out of four dentists recommend..." This approach often involves an appeal to authority."

- Appeal to authority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Brief excerpt: "An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it, where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter's credibility). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy."... (Note from qbeac: but it works!)

- Out-of-body experience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_Of_Body_Experiences

The sceptic's main argument:

Brief excerpt: "While the subjective experience may be very compelling, most skeptics discount the idea that the phenomenon is somehow linked to an actual physical relocation of consciousness. They note that, in the absence of the typical conviction that the experience is real, these experiences would simply be considered dreams; and that lacking hard evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation would be that the experiencer's sense of heightened reality, however powerful, is a subjective one."
--------------------

Well, that was a list of some important concepts which have to do with the three main parameters I mentioned in my previous post: credibility, subjectivity and viewing figures. So, in my next posts I would like to explain one possible path to get to the top of the mountain based on all those concepts.

Chao. qbeac.

[1) Credibility]

Yes, that's right I agree with this, and what you say, so yes!

There's many ways to achieve this objective, the hardest of all is start from level 3, and then use that. It's far easier in comparison to help them to smell the roses.

It's like skydiving, you can tell someone what it's like, and they might want some kind of proof.  Well, you'd say, well I'll teach you how to sky-dive then you'll see.

It's easier to experience than proof.  So the problem then boils down to how to do teach a skeptic to have a Astral Projection Type experience that questions his nature of reality.

Us non-natural projectors, have to work hard to have a OBE, so a skeptic it's going to be hard.

Interesting question though.  What type of experience can a skeptic have, that will make them question their view of reality?

Hello BillionNamesofGod,

According to what you say, I believe we have exactly the same final goal: We both would like for people to have the opportunity to climb the same mountain so that they all could smell the roses waiting for them at the top. We would simply like to invite them to have a very nice experience, just like if you invite somebody to a party. Correct so far?

The question now is this one: Which is the best path to the top?

Well, I don't think there is only one path. I think there are several ones, and each person may decide which one he/she prefers. What we could do perhaps is to pave different paths, present them to people, and let each person decide which one suits him the most. So, this is an open debate and all constructive ideas will be welcome.

Let me give you my personal opinion about a "possible good path" that could lead many people to the top, or at least help them getting to the top. Maybe I'm wrong with this idea, I am not sure, but please, let me explain you what I have in mind, and I will also remain open to constructive criticism, because to me, this is a joint effort, team work.

In my opinion, conclusive or empirical proof (if we can get it) is not the final goal at all! It is only a temporary tool that might help or lead some people to reach the final goal: to smell the roses.

But before we proceed, I think we should define several important terms.

I will base my argument in three general concepts:

1) Credibility of the speaker. Speaker = person who has an OBE or AP.
2) Subjectivity of the matter. Matter = the OBE or AP phenomenon itself.
3) Viewing figures. It refers to the people who have not smelled the roses yet.

Let's suppose we have the following two hypothetical scenarios:

1) qbeac sends this message to the world: People in the world, please, listen to me, I have something very important to tell you and I am telling you the truth: I assure you OBE and AP experiences are real and they are also very fruitful, enjoyable, etc.

2) Several prestigious scientific journals (Ex: Nature, Science, The Lancet, etc.), plus several important TV news programs (CNN, NBC, ABC, BBC, etc.) say: The results of a recent scientific study about OBE which has been published in "so and so" medical journal, convincingly show these experiences might be real and not imaginary, etc. (* See foro MIGUI, dice example).

Ok, let's now analyze those two hypothetical scenarios according to the above parameters: credibility, subjectivity and viewing figures. And please, bare in mind scenario number 2 would only be a first step in the path to the top of the mountain.

Please, what do you think will happen with that analysis?

Chao. qbeac.

P.S. In my next post I will include several other parameters that I think will be useful for this discussion.

(*) This point would require further explanations, but if somebody would like to take a look at the "dice example", see Math Foro MIGUI. Mathematical calculations of guessing by chance a random number:
http://foro.migui.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1119

["Wake up and smell the roses, it's not about proof."]

Hi Billion,

Thanks for the thought out post. I agree with everything you said. In my past I didn't require anything more than level one proof. I was pretty open with my experiences and have spent many years arguing my point to complete sceptics. Perhaps having to argue my experiences in a more objective manner has led me to seek a greater proof for myself. And perhaps I read too many scientific journals and so try to squeeze all my experiences into such a frame work.
I'm also perhaps slightly guilty of being argumentative, and coming across more a sceptic in my posts then I actually am It's a bad habit of mine  

no not really, its natural human instinct, I'm the one who should apologise.
It is one great mother of a giant level 3 thinking, I admit it's very hard.

I can't honestly see how we can do level 3, so I'm still thinking... so much it hurts, and I give up !!!!!!!!!
I admire you for having the balls to go for it.

Hello BillionNamesofGod,

Thanks for your comments. With all the things you have explained, now I think I understand your position better. In fact, I believe we may have some very important common opinions that perhaps we had not realized before. For instance, in page 5, Post #9 you said to people in general, and especially to skeptics who have never tried AP nor felt all the good sensations and feelings related to it:

"Wake up and smell the roses, it's not about proof."

Let me say something to you: I do agree with you on that statement 100%, because ultimately, it is not about proof, it is about smelling the roses.

Therefore, I believe we will probably also agree on the following thing, and please, correct me if I am wrong:

You, BillionNamesofGod, would like for people to learn how to astral project so that they too can smell the roses.

Is that correct? Is that the way you think or not? Did I understand you correctly?

Let me now give you my opinion about that sentence:

Me, qbeac, would also like for people to learn how to astral project so that they too can smell the roses.

Do we agree on that specific issue so far, or not?

Please, if you could answer that question, we'll go from there, because I would like to complete my argument.

Thanks. qbeac.

[transference of information]

Hello MisterJingo, I totally agree with what you say: "...If all that occurs is the regurgitation of statements with no progress on either side..."

As far as I am concerned, I have already explained my personal position about this matter and in this forum. I would like to add that in Spain we are now working with a very much experimented OBEer (or APer could you say?) who totally agrees with the arguments I have been defending in all these posts. We are going to proceed with the experiments and hopefully reach "Level 3 validation."

Finally, I would simply like to refer to all the previous posts I have already posted, and in relation to scientific proof, specially to Post #2 in page 4 of these thread. Let me just quote a brief excerpt of it:

"In other words, that would be a good enough accomplishment "to begin with", in my personal opinion. That would imply, for instance, considering having to change or review current scientific textbooks concerning human consciousness! (Ex: psychiatric books, psychology books, neuroscience books, etc.)

"However, for right now and with this first experiments we do not pretend to say that "OBEs as such are real" (meaning getting out of your body), but we do pretend to say that there was a transference of information from the target (the paper with the two words written on it) to the brain (or mind) of the OBEer which should not have happened, because it would be IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen according to current physical laws.

And I will add: ant that's a BIG deal for modern science, and scientists know it.

In fact, the Spanish Science forum is a good example of it and you can check it out for yourself, because over there, as scientists have had the opportunity of examining more in depth the serious data, they have gradually turned from being quite sceptical at the beginning, to now being expecting results. That's a big change!

I encourage all those of you who may think the same way we do, to do the same thing we are doing in Spain (do the experiments), because it is important that somebody does it.

Thanks a lot. qbeac.

[Dr. Pim van Lommel (and many other scientists) clearly says the same thing in his article published in The Lancet: "more studies need to be done."]

Hello everybody,
Hello Draege,

On the other hand, and as I said in my previous posts: "in the Spanish science forum we have thought of around 10 different scientific approaches to study this matter..." For instance, science does not deny Pam Reynolds NDE. Serious scientists simply says that a single study and under the conditions the Pam Reynolds event took place is not enough. Therefore, other similar studies should be performed applying several security and control mechanisms that were not applied in the Pam Reynolds case simply because they had not thought about them or were not well prepared for them. Dr. Pim van Lommel (and many other scientists) clearly says the same thing in his article published in The Lancet: "more studies need to be done."

This is probably similar to saying to Galileo:

"Ok, you have seen those small planets moving in the wrong direction, well, let us also look through our own telescopes and make sure you did not make a mistake, or that your telescope was not out of focus."

Those types of hypothermic cardiac arrests operations are a new and modern technique, and there are going to be many more operations in the future in which the appropriate control and security measures could perfectly be set in place in advance to try to provide conclusive proof of the anomaly I have talked about in many of my previous posts (I refer to them). Because in case such a big anomaly was to be confirmed, they would have to change the scientific text books.

If anybody would like to learn more about this particular subject, just read the complete Dr. Pim van Lommel article in The Lancet (a pioneer article in history!) and the other one titled "Reply to Shermer" in which he explains this whole thing in detail:

- Dr. Pim van Lommel's The Lancet study 2001 about NDEs (complete text): http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
- Dr. Pim van Lommel. Reply to Shermer (Please, read this article CAREFULLY): http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htm
- Pam Reynolds' NDE (hypothermic cardiac arrest)
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

So, in summary, that statement of yours (see previous post, note (*1)) should not necessarily be what's going to happen in the future.

I call upon all people who would like to work towards a "different and better future" to joint efforts in that other direction.

Un saludo, qbeac.

Hello everybody,
Hello Draege,

My position in this debate is clear: I believe the experiments can be done and should be done, for the benefit of human kind. And I call upon other people who may think the same way to take action in the same direction, and to do it as a team, all of us together.

This statement of yours, in my opinion, might not necessarily be so, it could be so or it could be not: "...The truth is there will never be solid proof, there will always be cracks that ask "but what if?... (*1)." And it could be not so for many reasons, among other ones because nobody can know how things are going to develop in the future. Nobody can foresee the future and I don't believe the future is written. I believe the future is in our hands, so it's up to us today what type of future we get tomorrow.

I have personally decided to work for the future which is described in the Howard Storm's NDE (a spiritual one), and I would be glad to joint efforts with all those persons who may have the same goal. This is his NDE:

Howard Storm's near-death experience
http://www.near-death.com/storm.html

The Therapy of Love
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/storm03.html

Note: see also post #1, pag. 3:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21011&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=20

The question is this: Is this going to be once again a debate about proof that gets nowhere or are we willing to make some progress?

So maybe anybody that is not interested in the proof question because he thinks its nonsense should probably not posting arguments here, that haven been said a hundred times.

I think the things are quite simple actually, just reads qbeac's posts about the 3levels of validation and why he thinks thats important. I agree with what he says and think it is an great and important task to try to find ways to proof OBE's on Level 3. Now I do really not understand what kind of problem some of you have with the "proof-question" I really don't get it.

I seems to me that most great astral-explorers found this subject important. Robert Monroe, Robert Bruce, Stephen Laberge, and also Frank seemed to think that it is a subject worth of consideration. Simply because a true scientist finds experiments and ideas to validate or to reject theories vital.

So why not make something constructive here? why not pool our knowledge together and try to make some progress?

Hi Tombo, I totally agree with you.

qbeac.

[MisterJingo]

Hello MisterJingo and BillionNamesofGod,

I am also a scientist, and I would like to give my personal opinion about this discussion you are having:

To discuss this subject from many different points of view is fine and it should be done. But, in my opinion, philosophical discussions, or scientific-philosophical discussions, or even totally scientific discussions "alone" but without "scientific experiments" may lead us nowhere. We could be discussing this subject within those parameters for thousand of years and we would not move a single centimetre from where we are today, because in those terms there are tons of very good reasons to say this and also to say that.

Therefore, in my opinion, the only solution to move forward is to do the experiments.

Nowadays, modern science has plenty of new technological tools by which to study these types of experiences. Many different types of scientific experiments could be done to obtain scientific data about these experiences. So, let's do the experiments first and then we'll talk about their results. In fact, in the Spanish science forum we have thought of around 10 different scientific approaches to study this matter, some are very simple and others are very complex ones. Only one example (there are many more): by studying hypothermic cardiac arrest patients:

Pam Reynolds' NDE due to a hypothermic cardiac arrest operation:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

Now then, in our opinion, the Agnostic Method approach could be a very good first step in that type of research. The Agnostic Method is an excellent starting point to research these types of experiences because it has two main advantages:

1) It is extremely simple. Anybody can do it in its own home without having to use complicated technology. People can easily "understand it". Also, people can easily "practice it". Reading only "two words" in a paper is one of the most "simple" and at the same time most "reliable" tests you could do while having an OBE (at least for some projectors). So, it is very important to point out that from the standpoint of science "it also has to be reliable": the probabilities of guessing by chance should be as small as possible. For better or worse, the scientific community does not accept subjectivity as a valid Level 3 validation.

2) It is extremely reliable. If you compare its probabilistic calculations with other methods, you'll see that it is the most reliable one. It's simplicity to reliability ratio is one of the highest one. Further more, scientists know that mathematical calculations don't lie! And that is a very strong argument from the standpoint of the scientific community.

We also tried to make the Agnostic Method as easy as possible because the easiest it is, the more people are going to try it. The more complex it is (computer programs, etc.), the less people will use it. We tried to find the best possible simplicity to reliability ratio because our goal is to find the best projectors (screening procedure) that could later on do "Level 3 validation" experiments if they so desire.

So, please, I will ask this question one more time to all of you:

Have any of you already tried to read words while having an AP or OBE? In your opinion, do you think the hints we have designed in the Agnostic Method to read the "real" words and to avoid "false positives" could be of any help?

Thanks. qbeac.

[Tvos,]

this is getting way out of hand... my advice is this, plan and simple... and yes this is directed to Qbeac... pratice obe, work at it, read and learn from the people in these forums, coduct your own experiments and draw your own conclusions...

Hello Tvos,

You say that what I need to do is to practice myself, but it seems to me we are not understanding each other very well. Therefore, I would like to clarify something important about that:

I do believe these experiences are real. I have had many of them myself and my intention is to keep practicing them. I cannot control them yet, but I insist, "I do already believe they are real."

However, the reason for my interest in obtaining scientific proof (or "Level 3 validation") is not for my own satisfaction. Among other reasons because I already have my own very much satisfactory "Level 1 validation" and I do not need any more "Level 1 nor Level 3 validation" for myself. What I am trying to do is to find "Level 3 validation" for the scientific community, for them, not for me.

And please, let me explain you why I believe that is SO important to do:

In the case AP and OBE are real experiences (and insist, I too believe they are real for different reasons), and considering that nowadays just about everybody can have easy accesses to this "new" knowledge via the modern means of communication (specially via Internet, forums, etc.), it seems to me that we may be on the verge of an evolutionary change in society (or an evolutionary leap forward, and I mean a positive change).

Now then, in order for that change to happen, or to proceed, or to not be blocked, or to happen with a greater speed, or to consolidate itself, in my opinion, it is necessary to obtain empirical proof, or scientific proof, or conclusive proof that these experiences are real and not imaginary.

For better or worse, nowadays, in the year 2005, the scientific community has the key to facilitate or to promote that change, or the contrary, to block it or delay it. Because if the scientific community officially validates these experiences, that will open the door for the public recognition and acceptance of these experiences by the rest of humanity, and vice versa.

The problem nowadays is that the type of validation that many of us have is only "Level 1 validation", and even though that may be totally sufficient for ourselves, it is not sufficient for other people, for MILLIONS of them! In fact, "Level 1 validation" may be a very weak type of validation for many people who have not experienced or are not too sure of these experiences. Many of them will tend to think they are only dreams or hallucinations.

But "Level 3 validation" would be a completely different story, among other reasons because by appearing first in prestigious scientific journals, it could also appear afterwards in nation wide news casts (TV, radio, newspaper, etc.).

For instance, imagine that tomorrow a prestigious medical or scientific journal (Ex: The Lancet, NATURE, Science, etc.) would publish a sound scientific article providing scientific evidence or even proof of the reality of these experiences (that article would be called "Level 3 validation"). A few weeks/months later, the CNN would probably also want to talk about the article that has already been "published" in NATURE, but not as something "subjective" coming from somebody's personal testimony, but as something "scientifically proven".

Well, in that case, I bet you the next day/week/month, the libraries will notice an increase in the sales of books to learn how to do astral projection. Why? Because a lot of people, knowing now that these experiences are real and not imaginary (because NATURE and the CNN tells them so, not us), will want to know more about it.

This situation is kind of similar to what happened in Galileo's time: first a great deal of opposition and rejection about his new observations and hypothesis, but later on, and as the evidence kept piling up, it was simply impossible to deny it.

But, in order to obtain "Level 3 validation", somebody needs to provide it, and right now, only people who have a certain amount of control doing AP or OBE can do that.

qbeac.

Please quote where I ever said it is nonsense. This is this kind of thing I'm trying to escape from.... (main text of the post)... Is that form of life really preferable?

Hello MisterJingo, with a few small touches, I agree with what you say in your post. qbeac.

[BillionNamesofGod,]

Hello MisterJingo and BillionNamesofGod,

BillionNamesofGod, I find perfectly reasonable when you say that if a person is already convinced of something, because that person has plenty of "personal reasons" to be convinced of that (Ex: that person has "experienced it", it has "felt it", etc.), why should that person want any further proof? In fact, that person does not need any further proof!

Let's suppose I burn myself with cooking oil and it hurts me a lot. I scream! After that, I don't need for anybody else to prove to myself that the oil was hot, because I already know it.

In this regards, I would like to refer to the three levels of validation I described in the previous page, page 5, post #6:

Level 1 validation is only a personal level, for a single individual.
Level 2 validation is for small groups of people (Ex: family members, friends, etc.).
Level 3 validation is for the scientific community and, therefore, for all humanity.

When I talked about "Level 1 validation", I mentioned that the different types of personal validations may be good enough validations for that person, and then added that pursuing other levels of validation, such as the Agnostic Method, it's up to that person, depending on how sure he may be of his experiences. So, that's a matter of personal and free choice. And that seems quite reasonable to me.

I also find it is quite reasonable what MisterJingo is saying: Let each individual decide by himself which level of validation he prefers (L1, L2, L3). MisterJingo, I totally agree with you on that.

At the same time, there are lots of people who have never had nor felt OBEs and would like to see further proof (L2 or L3). I have talked to many of them and I find that's quite reasonable too from their perspectives.

Further more, for many reasons that I will describe some other time, I believe it would be very good to try to provide "Level 3 validation" to the scientific community. In other words, I believe it would be great if some persons who are able to have controlled OBEs, would voluntarily consider providing the scientific community with "Level 3 validation." And the reason for it is because that could have enormous good repercussions for society in general.

qbeac.

Hi Tvos, hmmmm, I think I found the problem: first I used Mozilla Firefox and it gave the error message, but then I tried IExplorer and it worked. I have been reading some of your diaries.

Thank you very much for sharing them. qbeac.

Hi Tvos, when I try to enter your web site (ftp://invisiblelight.us) I get this error message:

"530 Login incorrect."

qbeac.

Hi, I have a question for the moderators: Would it be possible to include the number of each post in the heading of it? That way is easier to refer to previous posts. Thanks. qbeac.

[Possible hints to read the words might include but are not limited to the following:]

Qbeac,

Reading numbers, letters is not difficult. Looking from the astral plane to the physical plane there will be traces of the past,present, future. If you read up on my card experiments and review my journal notes/narrations of other experiences I am sure that you can draw conclusions....(...)

Hi Tvos and everybody,

Please, I would like to ask this question to anybody who may have already tried or will try in the future to use the two hints we described in the Instructions of the Agnostic Method (see bellow). This is the question:

Do you think the hints to read the words could be of any help in order to read them correctly? I mean in order to help you reading the "real" words and not "false" words?

We have described those two hints in this link:

INSTRUCTIONS OF THE AGNOSTIC METHOD (4th post, pag.1):
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

Let me reproduce the two hints here:

Possible hints to read the words might include but are not limited to the following:

A) Write in front of the words 2 distinct numbers that the projector (the one having OBEs) already knows before hand from the physical plane (he can even choose this numbers himself) in order to help him "focus" better on the words. If the projector is not able to recognize the numbers (while in the OBE state) that he already knew from the physical plane, that will be a sign that something is going wrong, and vice versa. For example, the projector already knows the numbers 25 and 47, but not the words, so we would write in the paper something like this:

25 HORSE
47 DOOR

B) Write the words in more than one paper at the same time (Ex: 2, 3, 4 different papers), and maybe on papers and with inks of different colours, or also using different types of materials instead of just paper (Ex: paper, metal, wood, plastic, a black board, etc). How complicated this hint becomes is up to you. The idea is to make sure that when you are looking at all of the papers (or all of the materials) from the astral plane, all of them should have the same words written on them, and if there are differences, you will know that something is going wrong.

Due to the differences between the astral plane and the physical plane, all of the above are ways to help the person having the OBE or AP to read the correct words.
-----------------

Please, what do you people think? Do you think it could work? Do you think those hints could help, or not?

Thanks. qbeac.

[Major Tom, Mendel, Tvos, Tombo, skropenfield,]

Hello everybody,
Hello Major Tom, Mendel, Tvos, Tombo, skropenfield, thanks a lot for your comments.

Before we proceed, I think it would be good for us to agree on a common definition of "validation" and "scientific proof." For instance, this could be one:

Definition of validation: "Whatever is necessary for people to be convinced of something."

Note: By "people" we are referring either to a "single individual", or to a "small group of persons", or to "all humanity".

Definition of "scientific proof": a specific type of validation which is accepted by the "scientific community" to be convinced of something.

According to each author, "scientific proof" could also be referred to as "conclusive proof", or "empirical proof", etc., but we can discuss this later on.

Modern society, for better or worse, it is very much influenced by Aristotelian philosophy and principles: to see, to touch, to measure, in order to believe. In accordance to those Aristotelian principles, modern science has developed a very well known and standard method to obtain their own particular type of validation. They call it the Scientific Method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Brief excerpt: Scientific methods or processes are considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by scientific communities. Scientists use observations and reasoning to develop technologies and propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of hypotheses... etc., etc.

Therefore, "scientific proof", or "conclusive proof" may not always be the same as "validation", because it depends on the persons involved in the events: a single individual, a small group of persons, the scientific community, all humanity.

That's why in the Spanish Science forum (100cia.com) we have defined three levels of validation: Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3.

Level 1 validation is only a personal level, for a single individual.

There are different things that could provide a single person the necessary level of validation that would be quite satisfactory for him/her, "but" only for that person. Those things could range from home made experiments (seeing cards, objects, etc.), to feelings, emotions, perceptions, acquisition of special intimate knowledge, contact with other "non material" beings and realities, etc. That may very well be a good enough validation for that person.

A graphic example: Let's suppose you are cooking French fries and you spill hot oil in your hand. That hurts! Therefore, you know in your heart the oil was hot. You are convinced of it because you "felt it", and it does not matter to you that the rest of humanity thinks other ways (including the scientific community).

However, in the case of OBEs, if somebody has not obtained yet the necessary personal validation (Level 1) he/she would like to have, that person could also apply the Agnostic Method (two words from the dictionary) to obtain it. This method could indeed provide a single individual "scientific proof" of the real nature of his/her own personal experiences. But it's up to that person to apply it or not, depending on how sure he/she is of his/her experiences.

Level 2 validation is for small groups of people (Ex: family members, friends, etc.).

In the material world we live in, we can exchange information, knowledge, data, etc., but not feelings. Therefore, in order to provide validation to your friends and relatives about the real nature of your experiences, you may have to give them something different from feelings, descriptions, etc. Some people may believe you if you just give them your testimony, but others may not.

The Agnostic Method is a good and efficient way to provide your friends and relatives (and specially the most sceptical ones) with the type of validation they will not be able to deny, because this method has been certified by professional scientists according to mathematical calculations and so forth (see previous posts for more details, Table 1 of the Agnostic Method, etc.).

That way, and in case any of them may have underestimated, or ridiculed, or made fun of your accounts, they could not keep on doing it any longer without contradicting a certified scientific validation: The Agnostic Method. In other words, from now on your credibility will grow and they will take you more seriously. That will also give you a greater level of self confidence about your own experiences.

For instance, you will be able to tell your friends or relatives the following:

"Hey, I have "guessed" those two words from the dictionary, but did you know that is much, much, much, more difficult to do than guessing by chance a lottery number? And I haven't "guessed" them once, I have guessed them 3 times in a role (or 4, 5, 6...). Look, check out Table 1." (Note: the reliability grows up exponentially with repeated positive results).

Level 3 validation is for the scientific community and, therefore, for all humanity.

The scientific community are in a similar position as your friends or relatives: they cannot feel what you have felt and experienced, and therefore, they need other type of validation: they want to measure it, or reason it out, or to perform mathematical calculations on it, etc. In other words, they need Level 3 validation, which is based on the Scientific Method. Thus, the Agnostic Method will still be a good method to obtain this type of validation, but it will have to be done according to all the guarantees of the Scientific Method (Ex: with security measures, with double blind control groups, computer programs and military precision to generate the random numbers, etc.).

-----------------------

Well, now I would like to pose the following question so that we can reflect upon it:

Would it be good at least for some OBErs to try to provide Level 3 validation to the scientific community?

What do you think?

Un abrazo. qbeac.

[MisterJingo:]

Hi Tvos, thanks a lot for your explanations. Yes, as you say, my intention is to remain impartial and to be patient (because I understand these things may take its time). I also have the desire to pursue the truth behind this matter. I also want to learn how to do it myself, but this may take its time too, so, in the meantime I'd appreciate very much your inputs and opinions.

Well, I see here two distinct opinions:

MisterJingo says: "...any attempt at gaining empirical evidence is going to be tough."

Tvos says: "...reading numbers, letters, or words is not that difficult."

My question to MisterJingo: you say it will be tough, but will it be possible? (Meaning by "possible": Is there anybody who is capable of doing it?)

My question to Tvos: you say it is not that difficult, but will it be possible? (Meaning by "possible": Is it possible to look at a good "copy" of the physical plane from the astral plane and seeing without too much distortion what's in the physical plane, or to see with a reasonable degree of accuracy the "real" objects in the physical plane? Is that possible? Is that easy? Why yes or why not?)

Well, that ended up being the same question for both of you  ... but they mean different things in each case.

In my opinion, it all depends on whether or not it is possible to "hold up" long enough a "real" physical scenario so that the two "real words" are not distorted (or badly distorted) and you can read them correctly. Also, we must underline that the two words are a physical scenario that "you did not know previous to your AP". Is it possible then to see them correctly? I say this because of what MisterJingo explains about the mind/brain being capable of generating a "non real" scenario (such as the roof top).

So, in the case of the two words from the dictionary, your brain will not be capable of fabricating the two "real words" (by imagining them, guessing them, etc.). Either you see them or you don't.

MisterJingo, Tvos, please, do you think it is possible to read correctly the "real" words?

Thanks. qbeac.

P.S. Hi Mendel, yes I am interested in what you explain, but I ask you the same question: do you think it will be possible to read the two "real" words?

[If]

If Ap can really take place in the physical, then there is no reason why those words cannot be read successfully....(...)...

Hi MisterJingo, it is very interesting indeed what you explain. However, I wonder if what you say applies to every case and every person or not. I mean, are there any people out there who may have a high enough degree of control during their APs, so that they would be able to "hold up" the physical scenario long enough as to read the correct words, or not? And I don't mean "every time" or 100%, but at least "some times", 40%, 50%, 60%...?

In other words, is having good or bad control over your APs just a matter of expertise, or a matter of practicing with it, or not?

Is it possible at all, at least for some people, to "mentally" (or some how) challenge the physical scenario so that you can look at it from the astral plane and it is not distorted, or not? (or at least "too distorted")

Thanks. qbeac.

P.S. If anybody would like to learn more about the Agnostic Method (AM) to verify if AP are real or imaginary experiences, this is the link (look for the instructions of the AM and Table 1 in pag. 1):

Method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

[Include a "control group" in your experiments.]

....As of recently, I will start to work with a close friend on partner explorations. Our theory, tests, targets will take some time. To me, this would be the ultimate in validation. But again, this would be a personal validation that I can share with the AP community....

Hi Tvos, if you start experimenting in collaboration with your friend, I suggest you do something:

Include a "control group" in your experiments. That's quite simple:

All you have to do is to talk to some other friends of yours who do not know how to AP and ask them that every time your friend (the controller) changes the two words for a new experiment (or what ever random number you decide to use, cards, digits, etc.), they, your friends from the control group, should also choose their own words to see if they guess or not.

When each of the experiments is over, you should compare the results you get with the results the persons in the control group get. Then we could analyze the data in the Math forum and see if the results are mathematically significant or not from a statistical analysis point of view.

Please, what do you think?

Un saludo, qbeac.

[In your own personal experience, do you think it could be possible for an experienced projector to read those two words correctly at least a certain amount of times?]

Hi MisterJingo,

Please, let me ask you something. You say that you "have been projecting since earliest childhood. My experiences have been intricate and consistent....."

This is the question:

In your own personal experience, do you think it could be possible for an experienced projector to read those two words correctly at least a certain amount of times?

I don't mean "always", but some times, and with the hints to read them correctly that I explained in the Instructions of the Agnostic Method:

Method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

qbeac.

[simplicity to reliability ratio is VERY high]

Hi qbeac,
You are correct. But it is more than the fact that brain can trick a person into believing fallacies though ...(...)...

Hi MisterJingo,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The experiment we are proposing (reading two words taken at random from a regular dictionary) is one of the simplest one we can do which has a very high level of reliability according to the mathematical law of probabilistic calculations (statistics). In other words, its simplicity to reliability ratio is VERY high, or "mathematical reliability", if you prefer. Please, take a look at Table 1 of the Agnostic Method:

- Method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

If the results were to be positive, then many other more sophisticated experiments may be done. For instance, with group astral travels, in which several people meet in the astral plane and exchange information. There are also several other types of more sophisticated experiments that could be considered using modern technological advances (all sort of sensors, particle accelerators, etc.), etc.

But the current experiment (the two words from the dictionary) would be a proof that the laws of physics are not working the way the scientific community think they are (in the year 2005). Let's put it this way: we would have found an important anomaly that should not be there. And that's indeed quite a BIG statement all by itself!

Seriously, after 9 moths debating this subject in depth in the Spanish Science forum (www.100cia.com) many people there consider that would be a very big anomaly, and therefore, a very big deal in modern science! And I do too.

If the results of the experiment were to be positive, this is what would happen: The target was in one place (Place A), the OBEer was in a remote place in relation to the target (Place B), and somehow they "met together". Did the OBEer get to the target or the target to the OBEer? Maybe they met "in between"? We don't know, but they certainly met, because before the experiment they were "separated" and now they are "together". Now the information is "inside" the brain (or mind) of the OBEer. Do you know what I mean?

In other words, that would be a good enough accomplishment "to begin with", in my personal opinion. That would imply, for instance, considering having to change or review current scientific textbooks concerning human consciousness! (Ex: psychiatric books, psychology books, neuroscience books, etc.)

However, for right now and with this first experiments we do not pretend to say that "OBEs as such are real" (meaning getting out of your body), but we do pretend to say that there was a transference of information from the target (the paper with the two words written on it) to the brain (or mind) of the OBEer which should not have happened, because it would be IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen according to current physical laws.

We must consider that the target has two characteristics:

1) It is "physically" IMPOSSIBLE to be seeing by the OBEer. It is totally out of his physical visual reach. And no tricks, no nothing. Artificial optical devices simply cannot do that.

2) It is "mathematically" IMPOSSIBLE to be guessed by chance (considering he repeats the experiment several times in a role with positive results. See Table 1 for more details).

Also, the results of the OBEer would be compared to the results of a control group who do not have an OBE, and we are just looking for "mathematically significant" differences in the probabilities of guessing by chance between the two groups. Do you know what I mean?

Un saludo. qbeac.

BillionNamesofGod:

I have to agree with Mr. Jingo on this. It seems to me like you need to open your mind to the negative possibilities, along with the positive.

1. The mind is a powerful thing...(...)...

-Andrew

P.S.: don't tell anyone about the moss and toasters. that's my gig.

Hi hotshotrobot, I very much agree with everything you say, and specially with these sentences:

"...truth-seeking approach."

"Therefore, it should be tested. People used to feel very strongly that the earth was flat, they said "Its obvious, just look how far out there you can see! It seems to go on forever!"

"7. Saying "No scientist would believe any proof you have" is also an unjust claim."

I would even go further: to provide proof to others, even though you may be already sure of something, may be an act of generosity! That's how society has evolved through out history, when pioneers found new discoveries or treasures and then gave proof of them to other human beings, so that they too could also be certain those things were true and benefit from them.

There are millions of such examples in history, in which the discoveries found by a single person were presented and shared with the rest of humanity in order to produce a change for the better. For instance: Galileo when he spotted the planets that did not go around the Earth, or Einstien when he envisioned the Theory of Relativity, or The Wright brothers when they made their first airplane, etc., etc., etc.

And the same thing has happened in many other areas when somebody who had any type of talent decided to share it with the rest of humanity simply to enrich it with it, for instance: all literature treasures from notable writers: Shakespeare, Cervantes, Aristoteles, Platon, etc., etc., etc. or in music: Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc.

Had they kept their talents, and their findings, and their discoveries only for themselves, humanity may still live in the Dark Ages. So I want to thank them for their generosity because they opened a better path for all of us and have made our life better.

Un saludo, qbeac.

I wouldn't totally agree with this. I have had many OBE's, even being seen by a third party in the physical who collaborated my actions and times during the projection. Yet I still have doubts to if I was actually 'outside' of my body, or that OBE is anything more than creative imagination. I am still looking for greater proofs.

Before anyone says I am lost for being so blind to my experiences, I would counter with that believing anything because it is preferable to alternatives (mind produced by the brain, death being oblivion etc) is just as blind.

I am exploring with a mind open to all possibilities and not limiting my experiences to a narrow belief system, as doing such a thing would dictate the direction of future experiences.

Hi MisterJingo, in my opinion, your position is quite reasonable: you simply would like to obtain solid proof because you are aware of the possibility that your brain could trick you some how and make you believe something is real when is not. Is that correct? Did I understand you correctly?

Some people say they don't need to see any proof because they are already sure, and that's good for them, but many others say they would like to see the proof.

So, let me ask you something: reading those two words taken at random from the dictionary (several times in a role) would be a good enough proof for you, or not? Please, what do you think? Could you comment on that?

Thanks. qbeac.