Hi.
I have had several so-called "out of body experiences" and to me they seemed to be just dreams or hallucinations. Id like to know, do any of you have any solid proof that this is real? As far as I can see, you all discuss and debate about things you have little or no knowledge of, and make crazy assumptions off your hallucinations.
Tell me, where is the proof that astral projection is a real phenomena? And if it is real, how often does someone actually have an "Experience" I read about a test conducted with "skilled"astral projectors guessing something in a separate room. And only a minority could give a description(of the objectS). So tell me, how many of you are befooling yourselves, and how many of you are actually having a real experience? In other words, where is your proof?
-Abraham
Hi Abraham:
First of all, welcome to the board :). I'm glad that say you "have had several out of body experiences" as you call them, but as you say, they seemed to be just dreams or hallucinations, so if you say that, I'm sure they were exactly that: dreams or hallucinations.
That does not mean that everyone experience is the same, for example, you can say that love is a kind of hallucination or something cultural based on your -very valid- experience and I can say that love really exists.
Tell me, do you believe in what ? In God ? In Darwin ? If you wanna start an "Intellectual Battle", there are plenty of sites out there claiming a lot of things, and I think those are better places if that's your attitude. Please, discard the idea -if you have it- that I'm an idiot trying to convince myself of something that is unreal. I already thought about that, but my experiences lead me to continue.
The problem, my friend is the way you asked the questions. I don't think too many people will have a burning desire to reply, because you made the questions wrong.
You will find here, a lot of people who say that these experiences are "REAL", others -like me- who say that they don't know and another group who say that these are Lucid Dreams or "Hallucinations".
Now I will speak just for myself: I'm an "Open Minded Guy". I'm searching and trying to find out if these experiences are "REAL" or not. If you check out the threads here, there are a few guys who are doing real experiments in order to find out. Yes, there is some proof. Where ? Well, here in this same board or in other boards.
The question is: do you believe when someone says that he was correct when he saw the random number in the other room ? Do you believe what Bruce Moen (http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com) says when he bring to the real world proof that he contacted deceased ones ? You can believe it or not, but if you believe, it will just be no more than a Belief. Not too different from what Christian, Mormons, Islamics or Atheists believe. If you experience that and validate it, you don't have to believe anymore: you KNOW it's REAL.
So, instead of trying to find somebody to prove it to you, just do a few exercises before going to sleep and see what happens. Maybe you will end up thinking it's just crap, or maybe, you will find out there "there's something out there". No matter if it "Out of Body" or whatever you wanna call it, THERE'S SOMETHING OUT THERE.
How in the world do we feel the same sensations ?
What are those Vibrations and Noises that we feel ?
Hallucinations ? Yeah, but it's strange that we are making this up more or less the same way. There are "physical" sensations that are undeniable.
So, my friend, I can't reply to your question. Maybe you are right, but I will find out instead of believing.
By the way my friend, what are your beliefs ?
Cheers,
Magic.
There are allready very long old threads discussing this, You might wanna look there cause likely the people do not wanna rewrite it all.
Ah the good ol' proof argument. The simplest and most basic reason for disbelieving. Well all I can really say is this... my only goal is to prove it to myself. Call it selfish, but this is a personal and individual journey for each of us, and I have no concern to other peoples beliefs on the matter. Truthfully, in real life my friends and family don't even know I've had OBE. It's just for my own growth. And when people refute it and argue it's invalidity, I just smile and nod :wink: !!
Quote from: TomboThere are allready very long old threads discussing this, You might wanna look there cause likely the people do not wanna rewrite it all.
Yes, there are many threads like Tombo says. Check this one:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907
Quote from: AbrahamHi.
I have had several so-called "out of body experiences" and to me they seemed to be just dreams or hallucinations. Id like to know, do any of you have any solid proof that this is real? As far as I can see, you all discuss and debate about things you have little or no knowledge of, and make crazy assumptions off your hallucinations.
Tell me, where is the proof that astral projection is a real phenomena?...(...)...
Hello Abraham, you ask the following question:
"where is the proof that astral projection is a real phenomena?"Well, in a Spanish Science forum called www.100cia.com, we have asked ourselves that same question, and we believe we have designed a method that could provide a conclusive answer for this question:
are these experiences real or imaginary? We've named this method the
"Agnostic Method."You'll see more information about it in this other thread:
Method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experienceshttp://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907
... but besides the information you'll find in that link, I would like to clarify something important about this method:
The Agnostic Method consists of placing a target (Ex: two words taken at random from a dictionary) outside of the visual reach of the OBEr, and its theoretical strength is based on two important principles:
1) Let's place the target so that it is
IMPOSSIBLE for the OBEr to see it using regular physical means (his five senses. And no cheating, of course).
2) Let's choose a target that is
IMPOSSIBLE to be guessed by chance, or "mathematically impossible" to be guessed by chance (*1).
Ergo, if he can read those two words (only two simple words!!!), that means that we have found
the "anomaly" we were looking for, because according to present scientific knowledge, what that person would do is IMPOSSIBLE, and specially if he repeats the experiment several times with positive results... but, please, bare in mind I am giving you a summary.
This is kind of
similar to finding a new planet in a distance solar system, but not by watching it directly, but by watching how its mother star moves from on side to the other: they deduce that has to be caused by the gravitational pull of an unseen planet.
Please, take a look at Table 1, which has been reviewed by a professional mathematician named leach in a Spanish Science Forum (foro MIGUI):
Table 1: Probability of guessing by chance different types of random numbers:http://foro.migui.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1119
Therefore, we believe this dilemma is quite simple to solve:
Question: How difficult is it to "guess" by chance two words taken at random from a dictionary?
Answer: According to Table 1, that's much, much, much, more difficult to do than guessing by chance a lottery number (Ex: such as the Spanish Cupon de la ONCE, which is a five digits number. Ex: 78154), simply because there are so many words in a dictionary!
Question: What happens if you "guess" those words several times in a role?
Answer: The reliability of the Agnostic Method goes up EXPONENTIALLY!
And scientists know very well that mathematical calculations do not lie!Take care. qbeac.
(*1) According to the professional mathematicians we have talked to, the reliability of the Agnostic Method is
way above significant values regularly used in scientific and probabilistic calculations. So, that's great, because it would be a valid proof for the scientific community.
define real.
Abraham,
Here's a link to my ftp site full of material that I've been writing/narrating for the last 20years. Along with recent statistical data, personal verifications. Also, read up on some of my threads about the card validation (also included in my ftp spreadsheet).
ftp://invisiblelight.us
Id: u38940520-guest
Pass: astralplane
Magicmac2000 definitely hit home with proof vs. imaginary. It all comes down to "you" doing the work and finding out for yourself. Not to come of sounding rude, but this will not be handed to you on a silver platter. If you want to know if this is real, do the homework.
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18497
or
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19831&highlight=card+experiment
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.
But in all honesty, something is definitely there (IMO).
btw: did you feel the vibes Abraham?
Tvos
I have proof. I went over an area of my neighborhood that I've never been and took notice of a red car in a persons driveway. I drove their right after and saw it.
Quote from: knightlightdefine real.
Hi knightlight, well, it is hard to explain what we mean by "real" without explaining first several other things. We have talked about this issue during around 9 months in the Spanish Science forum, so a lot of things have been said about it. And it would take a lot of work to translate everything. I could give you the main link where we have talked about what we consider "real" and "imaginary", which is this one:
- Post #198, pag.20. La Pantera Rosa jugando al tenis en el quirófano.
http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?p=35288#post35288
... but, since that's in Spanish, I am going to try to give you a very brief explanation, even though I run the risk of not explaining it correctly, so if I make mistakes, please, forgive me or lets talk about it in the next posts. Here it goes:
We could say that "real is the contrary of imaginary". But what is imaginary, then? Imaginary is any type of information which could be constructed by your own brain, or "inside" your own brain.
Your brain could trick you and make you believe you are seeing something which you are not really seeing (dreams, hallucinations, etc.). But there is a way to find out whether that information has been generated inside of your brain or outside of your brain.
And that's the key: to find out whether the information came from the inside of your brain or from the outside of your brain. How can we know that? How can we know where the information came from?Well, let's place outside of your brain (outside of your physical visual sight) some visual information that we know what it is (Ex: two words taken at random from the dictionary), but you do not know what it is. Then, we make "mathematical calculations" to see which is the probability of you guessing those two words by pure chance.
We've made those calculations and you can see them in Table 1 (third post, pag. 1):
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907
And the result is what I wrote in my previous post: According to Table 1, that's much, much, much, more difficult to do than guessing by chance a lottery number (Ex: such as the Spanish Cupon de la ONCE, which is a five digits number. Ex: 78154), simply because there are so many words in a dictionary!
Therefore, we conclude that it is "mathematically impossible" for that information to come from the inside of your brain. So, if did not come from the inside, it had to come from outside of your brain.
If you do the experiment only one time, you could argue that you still may have guessed those two words by chance, even though that's much more difficult to do than guessing by chance a lottery number, but it could be possible. But as you keep repeating the experiment several times, the probability goes up "exponentially", and that means it becomes "impossible" in practice (see Table 1 for more details).
That would be as if somebody could repeatedly guess different lottery numbers many, many, many times in a role, without ever missing one, and that has never been done, among other reasons because it goes against the law of mathematical probabilities (random numbers, statistic, etc.). So, the more you repeat this experiment with positive results, the more reliable the method becomes to distinguish whether the information came from inside of your brain or from outside of your brain.
At the same time, you would have a
control group doing the same experiment (trying to guess the words, etc.). But the control group would not do Astral Projection nor Out of Body Experiences.
So, if there was not any thing special about OBE, the imagination of people who have an OBE
should yield "similar mathematical results" trying to guess the random numbers as the imagination of the people who do not have an OBE (the control group).
But, if the "mathematical results" between the control group and the subjects doing OBEs are
clearly different (significantly different), then you know that we have found an
"anomaly" that should not be there, because the event (whatever it may be, OBE, remote vision...) contradicts current physical laws (see my previous post for further explanation).
I would like to add one more thing:
This method will work if from the astral plane you could have "visual access" to the physical plane, or at least, to a very similar copy of the physical plane. If you can have that "visual access", the method will work because you will be able to see the
"real physical words" and report on them. If you cannot neither see them correctly nor report on them, it will not work.
This has been a summary, maybe not too clear, but I hope you can get the general idea.
Un saludo, qbeac.
Quote from: the voice of silenceAbraham,...(...)... It all comes down to "you" doing the work and finding out for yourself. Not to come of sounding rude, but this will not be handed to you on a silver platter. If you want to know if this is real, do the homework....(...)
As of recently, I will start to work with a close friend on partner explorations....(...)
Hi Tvos, you are right, this experiment could also be done between two people, and not just one (the projector). I mean that two friends could work together in partnership to do the same experiment (like you mention in your post). For example:
qbeac is the
"projector" (whenever I learn how to do it :) .
Abraham is the
"controller".
Abraham selects the two words
taken at random from the dictionary and put the paper in his room (in his house). And he doesn't tell anybody which those two words are. Top secret!
During the night, qbeac has an OBE (AP) and goes to the room of Abraham to see the two words.
Next morning, qbeac writes an e-mail to Abraham, and tells him: the two words are, for instance,
"nice" and
"travel."If qbeac is right
once, that way Abraham will also have gotten
strong evidence of these experiences being
real without having to learn how to AP.
Further more, if they both repeat the experiment
several times in a role with success, and according to the
law of mathematical probabilities, Abraham will have gotten
conclusive proof, and will have no doubt that these experiences are real.
Therefore, by following this method, people who can have OBEs (or AP), could provide conclusive proof of the real nature of their experiences to people (one or several ones) who still don't know how to have an OBE.
Un saludo, qbeac.
Well ia m new to this site, so i will put in my 2 cents. Personally it is "real" for me because, when i had my first accident OBE, i had full view of the back of my head and others around me, all was happeneing in my OBE as it was happeneing for real. Now i may have imagined it sure, but how many of you know what the back of your head looks like, personally i need a mirror;)
Hi everybody, in the sixth post of the previous page I gave an example saying that detecting a real OBE "is kind of similar to finding a new planet in a distance solar system, but not by watching it directly, but by watching how its mother star moves from on side to the other: they deduce that has to be caused by the gravitational pull of an unseen planet." You cannot see them directly, but you know they are there because what they do around them!
Well, you will be able to see a very nice example in this link, but instead of detecting the gravitational pull between a planet and its mother star, in this case is between a star and a black hole:
NASA Astronomy picture of the day archives:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051023.html
At the Center of the Milky Way
Credit : Rainer Schödel (MPE) et al., NAOS-CONICA, ESO
Explanation: At the center of our Milky Way Galaxy lies a black hole with over 2 million times the mass of the Sun. Once a controversial claim, this astounding conclusion is now virtually inescapable and based on observations of stars orbiting very near the galactic center. Using one of the Paranal Observatory's very large telescopes and a sophisticated infrared camera, astronomers patiently followed the orbit of a particular star, designated S2, as it came within about 17 light-hours of the center of the Milky Way (about 3 times the radius of Pluto's orbit). Their results convincingly show that S2 is moving under the influence of the enormous gravity of an unseen object that must be extremely compact -- a supermassive black hole. This deep near-infrared image shows the crowded inner 2 light-years of the Milky Way with the exact position of the galactic center indicated by arrows. The ability to track stars so close to the galactic center can accurately measure the black hole's mass and perhaps even provide an unprecedented test of Einstein's theory of gravity as astronomers watch a star orbit a supermassive black hole.
Hi everybody, let me give another example of what I meant in my previous posts when I said (regarding OBEs and guessing a random number by chance many times in a role), that, according to the law of mathematical probability, certain events are "mathematically impossible" to happen by chance.
Take a look at the link bellow about the grinding process of sand grains.
If you take, let's say, 10 kilograms of regular sand grains and shake them for a very long time so that they have the opportunity of grinding each other down, it is "mathematically impossible" that the majority of them will not end up having a round shape, because it is almost impossible (and in practice and in real life it is impossible) that most of them will escape the constant contact and wear caused by each other.
Same thing could happen with OBEs: if many of you can correctly "see" those two words many times in a role, it is mathematically impossible that we will not find the anomaly (considering everything that has already been said in these threads)... do you know what I mean?
Here is the link I was talking to you about:
NASA Astronomy picture of the day archives:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051024.html
Angular Sand on Martian Hills
Credit : Mars Exploration Rover Mission, JPL, NASA
Explanation: Why isn't this sand round? The robotic Spirit rover currently rolling across Mars has found notably angular sand in the Columbia Hills on Mars. Previously, small bits of sand found in the plains of Gusev Crater were significantly more round. The finding indicates that angular hill sand has tumbled less and likely traveled a shorter distance than the corresponding round plain sand. Such tumbling has the general effect of making sand and rocks increasingly round and with fewer sharp edges. Pictured above, as taken last month, are angular sand grains magnified by Spirit's Microscopic Imager. The above frame spans about three centimeters.
Hi everybody,
So, let me give you my personal opinion about this matter. If you want to see an important change in the current situation concerning these types of experiences (OBE, AP), in which society in general shows so much scepticism and rejection against them (they think they are dreams, hallucinations, some people may even make fun of it, etc.), this is what I think you should do:
Please, as many of you as possible, try to read several times in a role those two words. Show your friends and family members what you are capable of doing.
If you can do it, I am pretty sure the situation will change, because scientists know that mathematical probabilistic calculations do not lie! And that's a very strong, powerful and convincing argument.
Do you think you could read those two words?
Un saludo, qbeac.
P.S. The arguments on this thread have been completed in this other thread:
Method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0
Both threads go hand by hand.
Hi qbeac
What if the results are mixed?
lets say my mother places the word "Bongo" but I read "Banjo"
From what I know so far most of the time it is not possible to read the correct word but it is sometimes the case the the Projector perceives a somehow related word/picture
Are you confidently that we can overcome this difficulties? have you already tested methods to do so?
Cu Tom
Quote from: TomboHi qbeac
What if the results are mixed?...(...)
Hi Tom,
Well, that's why I put the example of the sand grains, because maybe a few of the grains could escape some how the erosion process. That's very difficult in the long run, but it could be remotely possible. However, after many cycles, the majority of them will end up having a round shape. But if 100% of them do not have a round shape, that does not mean that the erosion process has not taken place. The erosion process did indeed take place.
How do they know the erosion process did take place? Answer: because a "mathematically significant" number of grains end up being round.
With OBEs the same thing happens. You may not "see" the right words 100% of the time. But if the overall results are high enough (Ex: 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%... etc.), and if those results are considerably higher than the control group's results (Ex: suppose their results are 1%, 2%, 3%... but no more than that), then you'll know we have found the
anomaly. In statistic you can calculate a lot of statistical values: mean average, standard deviation, distribution, variance, etc. That way, you can know if the overall results are significant or not according to the law of mathematical probability. And that gives you a very accurate picture of what's happening in real life.The bigger the "sample" we have, the more reliable the results will be. Sample is a technical word in statistics. It means the amount of subjects you consider when calculating the statistical values. In our case, the sample will be the amount of persons who participate in this experiments and the number of times they will attempt to read the two words.
That's why it is so important that everybody who can have an OBE, practices reading those two words. This is a team effort! The more people who participate in it with positive results (not necessarily 100% accuracy), the highest the reliability of the method will be in the long run and the stronger the argument will be, specially in the eyes of the scientific community.
But, in order to increase the accuracy of reading the words, that's why we designed the hints to correctly read the words. And we would love for the people who practice OBEs, to tell us if those hints work properly or not.
Do you know what I mean?
Chao. qbeac.
Quote from: Tombo...Are you confidently that we can overcome this difficulties? have you already tested methods to do so?
Cu Tom
Hi Tom, we believe we can, but we are not totally sure yet. We are right now doing different tests and adjusting procedures and techniques. So far we have had partial results, but it is too early yet to reach to conclusions.
And that's why we would like for you to do the same thing we are doing, to see how you do when you try to do your own tests.
Bye. qbeac.
Quote from: TomboHi qbeac
What if the results are mixed?
lets say my mother places the word "Bongo" but I read "Banjo" ....
Hi Tom,
You ask what happens if "my mother places the word "Bongo" but I read "Banjo"?
We are not looking for an "all-nothing" or a "black-white" type of result. We are looking for a grey result which is as white as possible. If the right word is "Bongo" and you read "Banjo", you have correctly guessed at least
3 letters out of 5: B, n, o ("Banjo"). We could take these types of results to the Mathematics forum, and see if they can calculate the probabilities of these types of mixed results. The result will not be 100% correct, but it will not be 100% wrong either.
Now then, the higher the accuracy we get, and the higher the number of people who participate in the experiment and can get accurate results, the better and more reliable
the final overall results will be and, therefore, the more convincing they will be.
Chao. qbeac.
Hi everybody,
It seems to me that the sand grains example taken from the NASA web site is a very appropriate one for this situation. Let me explain you why with an analogy:
Suppose we all have a little sand grain. Each person has one sand grain of its own. In that case, our mission will be one composed of two main tasks:
1) Each one of us needs to try to get its own sand grain as round as possible.
2) All of us need to get together with as many people as possible whom all have their own sand grains, to build a huge mountain of nice round sand grains.
Let me translate that:
To get the sand grain as round as possible means that each individual person needs to try to get the best possible results trying to read those two words correctly. That would be equivalent to the "coefficient of roundness" of each little sand grain. So, let's all try to get the grains "as round as possible." In other words, let's try to see those 2 words as correctly as possible.
To build a huge mountain of sand grains means that the more people who participate in the experiment, the "heavier" the argument will be. A "heavy" argument means a very strong, convincing, reliable and mathematically significant argument to present to our friends, relatives, society in general, and specially to the scientific community.
Do you know what I mean?
So, let's tell everybody about building together this big mountain of beautiful round sand grains.
Un abrazo. qbeac.
Hello everybody,
Let's see one good reason why we should perhaps consider building together this big mountain of beautiful round sand grains:
The reason is because if Howard Storm's NDE account is true, then it is worth while trying to build that mountain. Now, do you believe his account could be true? I believe so.
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
Brief excerpt:
My friends explained, quite clearly, that all it takes to make a change was one person. One person, trying, and then because of that, another person changing for the better. They said that the only way to change the world was to begin with one person. One will become two, which will become three, and so on. That's the only way to affect a major change.
I inquired as to where the world would be going in an optimistic future – one where some of the changes they desired were to take place. The image of the future that they gave me then, and it was their image, not one that I created, surprised me.
My image had previously been sort of like Star Wars, where everything was space age, plastics, and technology. The future that they showed me was almost no technology at all.
What everybody, absolutely everybody, in this euphoric future spent most of their time doing was raising children. The chief concern of people was children, and everybody considered children to be the most precious commodity in the world. And when a person became an adult, there was no sense of anxiety, nor hatred, nor competition. There was this enormous sense of trust and mutual respect.
If a person, in this view of the future, became disturbed, then the community of people all cared about the disturbed person falling away from the harmony of the group. Spiritually, through prayer and love, the others would elevate the afflicted person.
What people did with the rest of their time was that they gardened, with almost no physical effort. They showed me that plants, with prayer, would produce huge fruits and vegetables. People, in unison, could control the climate of the planet through prayer. Everybody would work with mutual trust – and the people would call the rain, when needed, and the sun to shine. Animals lived with people, in harmony.
People, in this best of all worlds, weren't interested in knowledge; they were interested in wisdom. This was because they were in a position where anything they needed to know, in the knowledge category, they could receive simply through prayer. Everything, to them, was solvable. They could do anything they wanted to do.
In this future, people had no wanderlust, because they could, spiritually, communicate with everyone else in the world. There was no need to go elsewhere. They were so engrossed with where they were and the people around them that they didn't have to go on vacation. Vacation from what? They were completely fulfilled and happy.
Death, in this world, was a time when the individual had experienced everything that he or she needed to experience. To die meant to lie down and let go; then the spirit would rise up, and the community would gather around. There would be a great rejoicing, because they all had insight into the heavenly realm, and the spirit would join with the angels that came down to meet it. They could see the spirit leave and knew that it was time for the spirit to move on; it had outgrown the need for growth in this world. Individuals who died had achieved all they were capable of in this world in terms of love, appreciation, understanding, and working in harmony with others.
The sense I got of this beautiful view of the world's future was as a garden, God's garden. And in this garden of the world, full of all beauty, were people. The people were born into this world to grow in their understanding of the Creator. Then to shed this skin, this shell, in the physical world, and to graduate and move up into heaven – there, to have a more intimate and growing relationship with God.
Well, the eternal question.
It's simple really, when you do have a real OBE there will no doubt in your mind that it is a OBE, not a dream or anything.
That simple really.
You don't need proof - you know you weren't in your body..
Of course to people who haven't experienced the OBE well, it's all just nonsense and just a dream right?
If you are doubting your experience it * WAS NOT A OBE *.
Quote from: BillionNamesofGodWell, the eternal question.
It's simple really, when you do have a real OBE there will no doubt in your mind that it is a OBE, not a dream or anything.
That simple really.
You don't need proof - you know you weren't in your body..
Of course to people who haven't experienced the OBE well, it's all just nonsense and just a dream right?
If you are doubting your experience it * WAS NOT A OBE *.
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.
Quote from: MisterJingoQuote from: BillionNamesofGodWell, the eternal question.
It's simple really, when you do have a real OBE there will no doubt in your mind that it is a OBE, not a dream or anything.
That simple really.
You don't need proof - you know you weren't in your body..
Of course to people who haven't experienced the OBE well, it's all just nonsense and just a dream right?
If you are doubting your experience it * WAS NOT A OBE *.
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.
Well like I said, it's not a OBE then, remote viewing of clairvoyance or whatever, when you have a OBE you will damn know it. It honestly is that simple, you don't see people writing in books or offering proof - It just doesn't happen, it's a waste of time, it's the holy grail, which you'll never find because you are looking for a CUP when the holy grail is not a CUP.
And that's the magic about it. When you do have a OBE, you won't need any Proof, or look for it. Until you have a OBE it's all nonsense really, pure nonsense, proving it is quite silly. No scientist would believe in any proof you have.
Heck scientists think Premonition and ESP is nonsense, never mind OBES!!!
So to answer your question is simple, very simple.
* YOU WILL NEVER HAVE PHYSICAL PROOF OR FIND PROOF ON EARTH*.
* STOP LOOKING *
You will only have proof "* IN YOURSELF * " when you have a true OBE.
.... and *THAT'S ALL YOU NEED*.
so, start with expanding your mind and trying to expand your belief system. Start having more OBEs. One will be real.
Quote from: AbrahamTell me, where is the proof that astral projection is a real phenomena? ... how many of you are befooling yourselves, and how many of you are actually having a real experience? In other words, where is your proof?
Well... My proof that my astral experiences are real is just the same as my proof that anything at any moment in time is real... I see them, feel them, hear them, interact physically with them, react emotionally and intellectually to them, remember them, cherish them, and learn from them. They leave an indelible mark on me, and take up a permanent residences in my heart and mind. Dreams, hallucinations, and imaginings don't retain such powerful presences in me (though they might in some).
Quote from: Almost Mrs. MurphyQuote from: AbrahamTell me, where is the proof that astral projection is a real phenomena? ... how many of you are befooling yourselves, and how many of you are actually having a real experience? In other words, where is your proof?
Well... My proof that my astral experiences are real is just the same as my proof that anything at any moment in time is real... I see them, feel them, hear them, interact physically with them, react emotionally and intellectually to them, remember them, cherish them, and learn from them. They leave an indelible mark on me, and take up a permanent residences in my heart and mind. Dreams, hallucinations, and imaginings don't retain such powerful presences in me (though they might in some).
Thought you did a Frank Mrs. Murphy?
:lol: No, I've just been bogged down in mundane things. But I'm fine. Thanks for concern.
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. No one really knows what it is capable of, and to assume it is not capable of producing these effects is not a truth-seeking approach.
2. No one is saying that the experiences aren't real. The controversy comes from the nature of the reality of the event.
3. A lot of people rightfully wonder simply: Is a projection into the RTZ a projection into the actual physical world, or an elaborate copy of it?
4. If it is in fact the real physical world where the projections occur, there should be some simple test one can undergo to prove it, if not to the world, at least to oneself. The test would not be to test the reality of your experience, but rather the truth of the connection between the two states of reality.
5. Now, you'll probably want to say here that one doesn't need proof, that its just a self evident truth. The problem with this response is that intuition is fallible. No matter how strongly you feel you are projecting into the physical, it is still only a feeling. You can't be sure until you've brought some evidence back from the Astral state, that it does in fact correspond. If this is not possible, than it is purely an issue of faith, the way believing in God is. But there is no very simple, obvious test to prove the existence of God the way there is here. 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!"
6. The 'Holy Grail :: CUP' analogy is an interesting one, but it ultimately doesn't work. The proof of the astral/physical connection is not of the form 'abstract entity :: physical object' it is of the form 'astral body/physical object 1 :: physical body/physical object 1'. We are not blinded in the quest by looking for something the wrong way in the wrong place, all we want is a very simple correlation between the two situations.
7. Saying "No scientist would believe any proof you have" is also an unjust claim. There have been several scientific tests to determine the validity of OBE's. D. Scott Rogo has been involved in many experiments, and written lots about it. It is definitely empirically testable, and even if you showed a true scientist empirical evidence that you can make gold from pete moss and melted toasters, they'll be forced to believe it. They might want to test the hell out of it, but they'll accept it alright.
The point of my going on about this is that assumptions are a bad idea regardless of how sure you are about something. I'm not saying that you should be paranoid and distrust everything, but more that you should be open to all and every possibility as Mr.J suggests.
-Andrew
P.S.: don't tell anyone about the moss and toasters. that's my gig.
Quote from: MisterJingoI 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.
Quote from: hotshotrobotBillionNamesofGod:
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.
Quote from: qbeac
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.
Hi qbeac,
You are correct. But it is more than the fact that brain can trick a person into believing fallacies though (one only needs to look at false memory syndrome which has been proven to occur through hypnotic regression, and other research where false memories have been implanted in people by simply showing them doctored photographs of their childhood). My need for proof comes from the possibility that mind is the product of brain (which would mean AP is purely brain generated, and the afterlife is wishful thinking). As much as this idea is repulsive, there is still a lot of interesting research which shows how mind function can be attributed to specific areas of brain. If AP is what people claim, then it is one of the best ways to achieve proof that the mind is possibly independent of the brain.
Even people at the forefront of AP like Monroe stated many times that you shouldn't take a belief of what AP is until you have enough evidence to make it a known.
Billion names of God, I have been projecting since earliest childhood. My experiences have been intricate and consistent, yet this is not proof of what people claim AP to be. It shows I am experiencing states which seem to be outside the confines of my body. And during a lot of these projections my mind has been more brilliant and vibrant than in any waking state. I have literally been super aware, and the experience has been more 'real' than waking reality. I am a frequent LD'er so can distinguish between AP and LD. I have seen the 'silver cord' (although it's a faint luminous green to me). I have met gods and devils, been taken to the genesis of creation and the end of the world. I have been placed in a machine which let me perceive the entirety of creation etc. In general, during these experiences I have been shown a lot, but none prove that it is more than brain induced. Each experience starts with me entering trance, inducing the vibrations (which I feel might have something to do with DMT release and trance reduced sensory input increasing its effect), and then 'rolling' out. Usually sight is limited until I get around 6 feet away. I look around; I am in my bedroom as it looks in reality. And then I go explore. If such experiences do not meet the criteria of OBE, then I would say the vast majority of people who have ever projected have not actually OBE'd too.
I also do not believe that OBE is actually outside of the body. The brain cannot distinguish between imagination and sensory input of the 'external' world. Do a google for this information, experiments where people have increased muscle mass over that of a control group by simply visualisations of working out. Also we have to consider that what we see as external reality is actually mind generated. Sensory organs do not emit information; they suck it up into the brain. The brain generates a representation of what it perceives the information to mean (this is a fascinating area in itself, google how little information the eyes can actually perceive, and how much the brain adds to our visual world to 'fill it out'), and we exist within that representation. So anything you ever taste, touch, feel, see, or experience is actually a purely internal experience. We forever interact with a mind generated representation based on sensory information. I see going out of body as moving from one mind generated state (reality) to another (Astral).
I'm not sure what would constitute good enough proof qbeac, most philosophers rule out a solipsism view of realty on the grounds that we cannot truly tell if everything is mind generated or not, so we might as well act as if it isn't, and everyone else we see is actually a sentient being. I guess proof for me would be to amass some data which holds up to scrutiny of others in the physical. I believe that if the AP state is real, and the energy, energy bodies etc are real too. Then at some point science will be able to detect them. It's easy to take something for ones self, say I believe and that is all that matters. But that is not enough for me. I have a scientific upbringing so perhaps that's where this desire originates :)
Quote from: MisterJingoHi 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.
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.
Quote from: the voice of silence....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.
Quote from: qbeacHi 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.
If Ap can really take place in the physical, then there is no reason why those words cannot be read successfully. From all the studies I have read regarding trying to get proof in the physical, the participants cannot find the cards, cannot read the cards or simply read them wrong. My experience of RTZ projections is that the similarity to reality is superficial, and one soon finds discrepancies. The longer spent in the RTZ the more distorted reality become until it bears no resemblance.
Something I have noticed time and time again is that if I'm OBE in an area that I am familiar with and I fly above the roof tops, then everything usually changes. It seems that I have no waking day knowledge of a roof top scene, even though I have knowledge of the area from the ground level. So the mind/brain generates a roof top scene which bears little to no resemblance of what that area actually looks like.
Other OBE authors have talked about this phenomena, it seems the mind can only interpret the astral within the confines of knowledge it already posses. So if something outside of our experience is encountered, it is interpreted in the best way possible – (which explains why people can interpret astral beings as angles, energy people, gnomes, elves, greys etc).
With the astral experience being so subjective, any attempt at gaining empirical evidence is going to be tough.
Quote from: MisterJingoIf 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
Qbeac,
What I can tell you from my ap experiences and research is that reading numbers, letters, or words is not that difficult. I've had many successful times where I've seen the word, or number remain static and other times dynamic. Not speaking for the others on the board, a majority of the people in AP are just beginning out which would be unfair to judge. But people like Frank, Major Tom, Me and among others have been successful.
From what I can tell you is that it takes a great amount of energy, patience, desire to pursue this. If the projectionist doesn't want to spend his or her time pursuing this - that's fine too. I also ask you to give it more experiences to really draw a conclusion if real or not. You have to be subjective at the same time objective.
Dig deep into ap and start working on your own experiences and see where it takes you.
I've also opened up my ftp site for research of my journals, experiences, for the last 20years. Feel free to indulge and explore.
ftp://invisiblelight.us
Id: u38940520-guest
Pass: astral-plane
Thank You,
Tvos
In response to the very first post in this topic:
Where's your proof that it isn't real? Bring it. :smiling9:
Hey all,
My proof:
http://www.mysticalexplorer.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2
Not perfect. Not double-blind. Lots of fun, though.
BTW, if anybody is interested in a free "psychic inspection"
send me an email. The purpose of these P.I.'s are to
improve my ability to locate others, validate my experiences,
but not to be a psychic in the traditional sense, i.e. offering
advice, etc.
-mike
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 :wink: ... 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?
Qbeac,
I don't think I could read two physical words
a 1000 miles away, based on my experiments.
But other projectors may be capable of this.
The general sense I have been getting from OBE'ing
to visit other people is that I'm not actually travelling
to their physical locales but instead to their dream locales.
A funny way to put it - I am travelling inside their head.
One way we could theorize this is that a part of
us, maybe many of our thoughts, visualizations
of the the way places look, and our dreams
exist in a different dimensional plane, that any
traveler can traverse. This is still is a really cool
aberration of conventional psychological thought.
Some of my earlier experiences in OBE'ing were
more "physical" in nature. Like seeing the rafters
in my apartment's roof, feeling the material
under the carpet, or putting my hand inside
different objects to feel their inner texture.
Alas, as I moved farther from my
sleeping body, the reality distortions tended to kick in.
So the experiment I'd like to perform now is thought
transferrence in the OBE state similar to partnered
exploration (PE) with Tvos. Many people have successfully
performed PE's. It's a common occurrence at
the Monroe Institute's programs. But like we advise
everybody else, we've got to do for ourselves to believe
it.
-mike
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.
Seeing both planes at the same time is always there and validations come in different ways. Ex: I was totally focused on proving my card experiment when I projected. Sure I was able to validate 2 cards but the other cards didn't validate. But what did happen is that I had a precognition of my mom going into the hospital and another event where it rained that day in my city. I had no knowledge period of these events taking place prior. So seeing into the astral to the physical definitely gave me that validation.
Tvos
Quote from: Major TomHi Qbeac,
You asked whether I considered it to be possible (in pm).
It ought to be possible, although it seems to depend on the psychological make-up of the person doing the "projecting".
First and foremost, the connection between the environment and the OBE environment is atmospheric.
It is atmospheric because perceiving objects or words in an OBE environment have to be processed through the psychological space of the person doing the perceiving.
So for example, a person who embarks upon the task of reading a card or two words will perceive something that is either an exact replica of what is there (the least likely possibility), or he/she will perceive something related to the task and objects.
For the sake of giving a clarifying example let's say the words is "hell's kitchen". It takes little imagination to see where things may go wrong in trying to perceive these words, and it all depends on the psychological make-up of the person what is actually experienced.
A person with an affinity to the city of new york may find him/herself in the location of hell's kitchen. A person preoccupied with darker aspects of OBEs may find him/herself in a hellish environment. A person watching to many television shows may find himself talking to hollywood celebreties.
All these are "hits" that cannot be appropriately quantified through normal scientific means.
So why does psychological make-up have such an effect on perception? The simple reason is that perception in real life in largely psychological. After all, no such thing as "two words" exists in real life. The reading and perception of the words is largely psychological already. The physical/sensory component of the words is totally meaningless (consiting of some lines on a piece of paper).
So everything is psychological space, which leads to all kinds of difficulties, since there is no actual reality against which things can be measured nor seperated from the observer either in real life or while OBE.
Yet, hits with "perfect" correspondence do seem to be possible. At least, there is some anecdotal evidence that those who experience it will have difficulty dismissing (scientific or not). Also, all these instances of atmospheric correspondence do seem to pile rather quickly when OBEing that are difficult to categorize under "coincidence".
What you would probably need is an OBEer whose psychological make-up is extremely orietented towards normal consensus reality, and will have the tendency to perceive an object directly, rather than its greater atmospheric reality.
Now, that may very well be impossible! :smile:
Mayor Tom you give a very good explanation and seem to have a lot of insight into this matter. At least as far as I can tell my own experience points in the same direction as you explain.
Now, I wonder how one could set up a validation experiment that would bypass these difficulties. You know, some kind of experimental setup that would allow validation for most people, something that would maybe even take advantage of these atmospheric conditions. I have no idea yet, though. Do you have any Idea how that could work?
Here some extracts from Hector Durville never published in english. :naughty: Hector Durville LE FANTŌME DES VIVANTS, Recherches expérimentales sur le dédoublement des corps, Anatomie et Physiologie de l'āme, Lieu d'édition: Paris, Date: 1912, A Paris Librairie du Magnétisme 1909. V. — Proofs of real presence of a phantom in a place occupied by him.
I. Sensitivity of a phantom. II-. His action on witnesses. — III. His action on screens with sulphurous calcium.
Clairvoyants see the (etheric) phantom, all the more strongly and developed their clairvoyance ability is. Strong clairvoyants perfectly see him, distinguish his features, movements, and efforts, even changes in appearance. The phantom shines with very bright light, which covers almost all room, with distinctive colors, blue on the right side, orange on left. Average force clairvoyants see him as incomplete human form; he is brilliant, but color shades are hardly appreciable. Weak clairvoyants see only foggy form, albesent or grayish. Many witnesses, not clairvoyants, meet both frequently appearing and disappearing light and light jets, which, by words of clairvoyants, the phantom emits. But there are witnesses who positively see nothing and always would doubt at the presence of a phantom of place really occupied by him, if there were not the possibility of an objective check. It exist a lot of these ways; I shall state some.
I. — Sensitivity of phantom. — In the second chapter it has been told, that the phantom is extremely sensitive also; the slightest touch is reflected in the (physical) subject, sometimes even rather painful (unhealthy). This sensitivity enables to check up always, whether there is a phantom where he should be.
Let's assume that by sufficient illumination a well condensed phantom sits in an armchair put for him on the left side of the subject.
If we approach too close to armchair, it is possible to touch his leg(foot), to step him on legs(foots) and to cause bigger or smaller pain which is reflected in the subject, who selects legs(foots), worries and complains. Stretching a hand to the top part of phantom body, make the same action on the subject. If we cautiously lead a hand around of phantom, it is possible to determine the place occupied by him. In darkness it is necessary to only hold the subject by hand and you will feel his concussion at each touch to a phantom. Acting thus, it is possible to check up always, whether really there is a phantom in that place where it has been sent?
It happens sometimes, that a phantom goes far away. If it is impossible to know exact place where it has left- it is always possible to find out the direction to this place on sensitivity of the cord connecting him with the subject. You place yourself near the subject, cautiously lifting and lowering the extended hand, on this or that point of space it is possible to touch a cord and the unpleasant sensation of this touch will be felt by the subject. The direction of a cord will show, on what side there is a phantom.
II. — Action of a phantom on witnesses. — When witnesses approach to a phantom or he approaches to witnesses, 9 from 10 persons feel his presence by sensation of freshness which covers them and soon disappears after his departure. The same people clearly feel something like a whiff, a little bit similar to as what you feel in front of electrostatic machine in movement. When the phantom can stay from 6 till 8 minutes before witnesses in one end of a cabinet it seems to the last, that in this part of room it's becoming appreciable more coldly. Few persons, who are not feeling this, have other impressions. So at approximation of a phantom, in particularly if the last stay before him 40 — 50 seconds. Dubo feels humidity on hands, especially on the ends of fingers. If the touch proceeds longer, humidity reaches the top part of body. Others feel easy trembling, something in a sort of shudder which, not being unpleasant, involuntarily amazes.
If you approach to a phantom, not touching him and omit then a hand in him, the hand is covered quickly with sensation of freshness or humidity. If you have a look in darkness at a hand, preformed a little bit (some minutes) in a phantom, it frequently seems slightly luminous, especially on the ends of fingers.
Here we deal with sensitivity of a phantom who makes sometimes dangerous and rather difficult experiences. There are witnesses who, eternally doubting the presence of a phantom, constantly demand, that the phantom was sent to them, and they prick or cut the phantom by hand. The subject shouts from pain, and the phantom leaves, not wishing more to be exposed to similar troubles.
The witnesses possessing some degree of clairvoyance feel more or less strongly touches of a phantom, especially if the last makes some pressure. I shall result only the following examples:
1. — on November, 6, 1907, 5 o'clock in the evening, in darkness, at the presence of Mrs. Steel and Fourier, Dubo and Bonn. The last near my desk, near to Steel.
I mentally express desire that phantom Edme goes to declare his presence only to two ladies. The last by turn declare that they feel presence of a phantom, an usual impression of freshness. In some minutes after the phantom has left the ladies, Bonn has complained on strong heat in head, unusual for him. — « I am exhausted, — he speaks. — under weight which presses me: blood flows to head and I choke ». The subject speaks at this time, that the phantom has climbed up my table, behind Bonn, has bent above the head of the last and has compressed it as in a vice. I order to phantom to return at place and we put on the light in room. The person Bonn is very flushed, hot head, hands damp, and the look shows deep depression. — « it is directly amazing, — he speaks, — some minutes prior to pressing of my head by phantom I thought, that the subject wants to deceive us ».
I do not enter into analysis of this unexpected case and I give the reader his own reflections.
2. — on January, 12, 1909, 9 o'clock in the evening. In darkness I make splitting by test person Jane in the presence of my son Gaston, without the conceived program. Enters Falck. We turn on a pocket electric lantern; he sits down near Gaston.
After carrying out of splitting phenomena I suggest Falck to rise and I send a phantom to him with an order to put the right hand on Falcks forehead and strongly press. The phantom goes. The witness sees how he approaches to him, lifts the right hand and hardly puts her on forehead. He feels a cold hand on forehead. In total it is more interesting that he sees details which we could not assume. — « the Hand is very brilliant, —he speaks: — I see even three rings on fingers: one on little finger, another on ring finger and the third on index. Diamond on the second ring is large (http://www.theosophy.ru/lib/durv8.jpg)and long".We put on the light and examine the hand of the subject. The indication of Falck was true. Lulling the subject, I have not noticed rings on his fingers that excludes an opportunity of mental suggestion; the clairvoyant did not know about presence of them as he has come in a dark room, not having examined even the subject.
We shall see further, that the phantom can act on witnesses still differently.
III. — Action of a phantom on sulphurous calcium. — The Phantom of some subjects allocates N rays rather plenty, what covers phosphorescence screens with remarkable image.
For people unfamiliar with last discoveries in physics, I allow me some indications on these new beams.
In the beginning of 1903. René Prosper Blondlot, the professor of physics at University in Nancy, studying rays X which do not refract, has noticed rays refracting. Soon he has discovered that these rays are independent of rays X, and characteristic property of them consists in increase in light emitting.
It is a lot of these rays in light of sun which is the main source of them. We find them also in light of electric lamp with the new glass cylinder, in human body as it have proved Augustin Charpontier, another professor in Nancy, and in some forces of the nature as other observers have proved. Professors in Nancy have named these new rays which increase shine of small fire, N rays, discovered in Nancy.
Practice has shown that it is possible to replace with advantage small fire with screen from a black paper on which it is necessary to impose preliminary sulphurous calcium, and the screen should be exposed for some minutes on light of the sun. Such screen is stored in darkness, in a dry place. Use it in full or at least relative darkness, and the screen becomes phosphorescent if you approach to it any source of N rays.
So, for example, in the darkness, sustained 5 — 6 days on the sun the screen becomes completely dark. But if you approach it some millimeters on the ends of fingers- against them on it more or less clearly will be designated a stain.
With these screens I made the most part of the experiences with phantoms and the following phenomenon has strongly struck me from the very beginning, together with everyone who saw it. As I spoke more than once, the body of the subject does not show any activity; property, which it possessed in a normal condition, — to cover screens, completely disappears; the phantom remote from a body possesses this property in extremely high degree. To some examples.
1. — on December, 17, 1907, 9 o'clock in the evening, in darkness, at presence of. M.Francois and. M.Sigon, professors of the Bruxel University.
I make separating of Mrs. Francois and I put near myself three small screens from the book: «N Rays » Blondlot, sustained 4 — 5 days on the sun and kept in darkness.
After several experiments of perception(recognition) of sounds and smells from a phantom I take two screens and I show their to witnesses who ascertain, that they are completely dark; I put one screen on lap to the subject, and another in a phantom sitting in an armchair, put for him on the left side of the subject.
The screen in a phantom is quickly glowing, and this laying in lap of the subject remains completely dark. In some minutes I take both screens and I show these to witnesses who are surprised very much with this phenomenon. Then I take the screen lying in lap of the subject, and I place it in a phantom. It is immediately glowing, as well as the first. I again show both screens to witnesses who find their covered enough that it was easily possible to perceive a stain of sulphurous calcium on distance of meter.
Then I take the third screen, not former even in use, and I hold it 2--3 minutes on stomach of the subject without the slightest gleam of light, then I omit it in phantom, and it is strongly covered. Witnesses certify, that it is so glowing, that one of them by means of its light sees on clock, what is the time.
2. — on November, 11, 1907, 6 o'clock in the evening, in darkness. Witnesses: Mrs. Steel and Fournier, the doctor dе-Saint Martin, Groh and Dubo.(http://www.theosophy.ru/lib/durv11.jpg)I make separating on Edme and I take two screens from the previous experiment preliminary sustained on the sun, now completely dark. I send one of screens to the doctor de-Saint Martin who must present it at known moment to a phantom who I shall send to him with the purpose of check — whether there will be an illumination. Other screen I hold 2 — 3 minutes in lap of the subject, but it is not shining. Then I put it at armchair in which the phantom sits. Through 30 — 40 seconds it is so strongly glowing, that all witnesses on distance at least 3,50 m. clearly see horizontal and vertical lines of specks. One of witnesses approaches on distance of 1 meter and can count all brilliant stains.
Having certified it, I send a phantom to the doctor who presents the screen that he holds in hand. Last is glowing, but in very weak degree.(http://www.czakra.anv.pl/biblioteka/019/019-pix/019-42.jpg)Light collected in screens is rather brightly printed on sensitive photo plates, even on completely weak.
I wanted to check up, whether the screens covered by a phantom are better printed on a (photo)plate, than those not influenced by action of a phantom I have taken two screens with sulphurous calcium, approximately identical size, sustained on the sun 2½ days, which in darkness were dark. I have put a sensitive plate in the open book; on the prepared side I have put the dark screen and the screen covered by a phantom, then I closed the book. After 10 — 12 minutes I have a plate which has given me a print represented on fig.
Though the difference on a plate is not so great, as I expected, nevertheless it is possible to notice, that the screen which has been covered by a phantom, have left appreciably more brilliant image than the other.
III. Action of a phantom on his own body.
I. Our feelings, our sensations. — II. Sight. — III. Hearing. — IV. Sense of smell. — V. Taste. — VI. Touch.
I. — our feelings, our sensations. — A person has five senses: sight, hearing, sense of smell, taste and touch.
The philosophy teaches, that the sensation is impression of objects which soul perceives trough feelings.
The physiology shows that the sensation divide in impression, transfer and an identification. The impression is made on sense organs; it is transferred by nerves, carrying out this function, in the nervous center of body where, with assistance of reason, the identification is made. So, the eye collects light impressions. The ray of light has struck in it, the retina has received this impression which is transferred by an optic nerve in the brain center of body and is transformed there in feeling. Just during this moment we learn an object which was embodied in our sight. Other sense organs operate in the same way.
The physiology examines this phenomenon only from materialistic point of view, not recognizing the mental reason which seems to it a superfluous handicap. The philosophy puts forward soul, but explains the mechanism of his action insufficiently. The theosophy goes further giving us rather exact details, but poorly based, however, on proofs.
« Forces of idea, movement, sensitivity, — speaks Annie Besant, — are not contained in nervous substance. These are ways of action of "I" working in more internal bodies ». (« L'homme et ses corps » — the Man and his bodies).
« That what you name "color", — asserts Chettergy, — is an action of vibrations on your retina environment. These vibrations are transferred by an optic nerve in a brain, and from brain in a hyperphysical or astral body. From astral transfer goes in thinking centers and then you see a object. Hence, this easy influence on the retina environment, transferred to a nerve and a brain, then in astral and at last in thinking. (« Philisophie esoterique de l'Inde » — Secret philosophy of India, page 28).
Actually, who have sensations- physical body or invisible body who revives the seen body?
Experiences prove to us, that the first is the instrument, which the second uses, so to be expressed, and that all sensations are really felt by this body. I shall prove it by means of separating of physical body and his double, separated from each other and investigated separately.
At the doubled person all physical feelings are completely destroyed; he sees nothing with physical eyes, does not hear, does not smell a smell, does not feel taste; touch does not exist for him because he does not feel a touch. All impressions are perceived by the separate senses which have been carried away by a phantom with self.
For all subjects the phantom is all-person, and the physical body is only the instrument, the tool given to him by nature, that he could be expressed physically. « The phantom is I, — speak Leontina, — a physical body — an empty bag ». « The double is I, — asserts Jane, — I do not know, that such body, but it not I ».
Edme gives on this question rather picturesque description, answering the questions suggested by me: « the Body which you touch, — she, — speaks simply in place of another. My entire person in a brilliant essence. It thinks, knows, operates; it transfers to physical body everything, that I speak to you ».
— How can we name this brilliant essence?
— The name is not necessary; it is Edme, it is I; if you want, call him Edme.
— It is necessary to distinguish him however from the other. You agree to name it аstral, a phantom, the double as it is your double?
— No, no! Merely not аastral. Name it double, how you wish; but not the double, because it is I.
Asked on the other session, she has again declared that the physical body feels nothing, sees nothing, and that all impressions are transferred to him by the double through a cord connecting them. « Touch the double, — she speaks, — the impression of a touch strikes in physical brain, and the sensation is reflected in it. When we talk, you believe that my physical body hears because it answers; but it is not true. It hears nothing; the double hears. The question and the answer are transferred by a cord in physical brain, as though movement, through something vibrating. The double sees also, and sight is transferred to physical body by movement, as though electricity forcing physical brain to vibrate and then the brain sees what the double sees. All impressions received by the double, are transferred in the brain centers, but these centers see nothing in themselves ».
This statement makes true revelation whose importance will draw attention of the reader. It should be developed and explained. A while I shall speak nothing, but in process of statement of the supervision collected by me I shall introduce some explanations which will finally demonstrate it in all its surprising simplicity.
Experiences prove up to evidence, that the phantom carries away with itself feelings and reason of the subject which has presented dwelling, and the present true body is an etheric body, instead of a physical.
The phantom directly receives impressions through sense organs. Transfer is made by special conductors to the astral centers where feeling occurs. The received sensation is transferred to body of the subject by a cord, nerves transfer it then in the brain center of body, and it is expressed physically, as though by reflection. The hearing of a phantom directly receives vibrations of words, but he can receive also them from physical body. When we speak with the last, it hears and understands as though, as answers, but actually it hears nothing, also understands nothing. Sound waves, however, are felt, but they do not make any impression on this upset tool, which has no more hearing to hear, and reason to understand. Sound waves are transferred by a cord to phantom who is the soul which feels, transforms feeling into sensation, formulates the answer in vibration, transfers these vibrations by consecutive waves to physical body which expresses them, i.e. answers them, physically — it was necessary to tell automatically — by organs of voice.
Observing these facts, you notice soon, that feelings are considerably more advanced at the doubled subject, i.e. at a phantom, that at the normal person because in the first there is no organic resistance which they find in the second.
Impressions of hearing are made not only on ear, but also on affinity of all parts of phantom body. The dwelling of sight not always happens in eyes of a phantom. Some subjects clairvoyants see the fine things, represented to a phantom, with this part, witch see in a condition of sleep-walking. Frequently impressions of sight are made with belly, a forehead, a nape, and the ends of fingers. Subjects not clairvoyants do not see in general things shown to him. Realization of other feelings is made by astral bodies just as are made by physical when the subject lies in a normal condition.
If the present true dwelling of feelings lies not in a physical body, blind and deaf should see and hear in known conditions, if even their bodies were unable to perceive impressions.
I have absolute confidence, that it is so indeed, and that in separation blind sees, the deaf person hears, also insensible feels a touch. I have had not the opportunity to study this phenomenon which I only for a moment observed as I still yet did not meet clairvoyant subjects of deaf persons, blind and at all not feeling a touch. But I shall take advantage of a case if it will be presented, and I hope, that in the following editions of the present book there will be overview of this sort.
Touch of hysterical subjects proves this to me; insensible parts in a normal condition are made sensitive in separation. However, Reichenbach already observed something similar. He experimented in a dark room with blind (strong clairvoyant) who saw оdon radiations allocated by people and even by metal objects taking place there.
Here it is necessary to make an important remark. The phantom operates, as a physical body in a normal condition. It is known, that we perceive better impressions when our attention is directed to them. So, we see, we hear, we try, we distinguish smells better when we look, we listen and we smell. The same happens with a phantom who sees, hears, and smells better when we suggest him to pay attention to impression which he should test.
After those a little long, but necessary forewords, necessary for clear understanding of the amazing phenomena of separation, I shall present to the reader the main overview collected by me about each of feelings, stating them approximately similarly as collecting them. III. — Hearing. — Hearing — the most subtle and most gentle sense organ at a phantom. He is capable to perceive sounds on much greater distance, that usually does make a physical body even at the greatest attention. Without exception doubled subjects perfectly hear all, when the body hears nothing. Some overview which I state by way of collecting them.
1. — on the beginning of my experiences since André, Marta is doubled; her phantom sits in an armchair on its left side on distance of meter. I bring watch to a part of the phantom corresponding to his left ear. Marta clearly hears ticking. I put watch to a nape, to belly areas, to legs(foots) of a phantom, — she continues to hear. I put gradually watch to an external aperture of ears of the subject, to a nape, belly and to legs(foots) of the subject — she hears nothing. Experience repeated with the same subject in different conditions, always yielded the same results.
2. — Phantom Edme hears watch, the same as phantom Marta; he hears also a rustle of a thin paper, which is crumbled.
Wanting to find out, whether can he hear from other room, if to speak to him silently, I have taken following measures: I have put a chair in the middle halls of assemblies « Маgn. Societies », also I has suggested to Mrs. Steel to rise from his chair during time specified by me and very silently speak to a phantom which I shall send here from the cabinet. Mrs. Furnier will be placed in a corridor, dividing two rooms, near a window to see the subject and me in cabinet, and also movements and gestures of Mrs. Steel.
I make separation on the subject (Edme) and when the phantom appears condensed enough, I send him to hall to sit on the chair prepared for him. Mrs. Steel and Furnier on the places. Edme complains at first, that Mrs. Steel touches she, that for she it is rather unpleasant. She hears, how it is spoken, but as she is weakened, she does not understand, what is spoken. I ask she to pay all attention to hearing, and I ask Mrs. Steel to repeat, what is spoken: — « she gives me advice and asks to be quiet ».
The subject is very tired, weakened; I send the phantom back on his place. Mrs. Steel declares to us, what she has told to phantom: « I'm here; you hear me? Be quiet and be not nervous ». These words have been made so silently, that Mrs. Furnier sitting in three meters of distance did not hear any word.
3. — Phantom Leontine hears very clearly ticking of watch, and physical body, despite of verbal suggestion, does not hear. We are in semidarkness.
I pass the watch to doctor de-Saint Martin and I ask him imperceptibly for the subject to check up, who hears sounds: a phantom or a physical body. Speaking nothing, during known moment the doctor cautiously approaches to the subject and by turn puts watch to his both ears, not touching to them, the Subject speaks nothing. The doctor brings watch to external ear apertures. The subject speaks nothing. Then the doctor directs attention of the subject to the watch put on ear, speaking, that he should hear it. The subject declares that he hears nothing. The doctor insists, asserting, that ticking of clock is very loud, that he should hear. The subject irritably speak, that he does not hear it. In some minutes the doctor quietly approaches to a phantom sitting in armchair on the left side of the subject, and stretches clock to that place, where lies a head of a phantom. The subject immediately declares that he hears ticking of watch. Then the watch is put on an armchair, on floor, on some distance from legs (foots) of a phantom. The subject declares, that he feels moving an object and perfectly hears it where it is have been put.
Knowing, that completely deaf people hears ticking of watch if they hold them on a teeth, I take watch from the doctor, I order to the subject to open the mouth, I insert in mouth a ring of watch and I order to press the tooths, paying the attention to sounds which I should hear. Then I ask him to unclench the tooths to take out the object. The subject understood, that he compresses something in teeths, but, despite of suggestion, he hears nothing.
4. — in darkness, I'm alone in cabinet with Teresa doubled.
After knocks in a table to which nobody have been approached, I want to find out, whether a phantom can easy hear noise when his attention is driven on other subject. For this purpose I put the armchair before a desk near window, in 5 meters from the subject, and I put the watch on armchair. I approach to the subject and, to distract his attention, again I make knocks in table; then, during the known moment, I suggest to phantom to sit in armchair and to tell to us if he will see something interesting on my desk. He slowly goes to armchair. At light of a pocket electric lantern I check, whether there he is, and I come back to the subject who exclaims: « anything interesting is present on your table, but I hear ticking of watch». I ask where watch is. — « I do not know, — he answers, — but I hear them perfectly ». — Well, — I speak, — be attentive. Having put hands on a table, you learn, whether on a table is a watch. — The Subject answers immediately: « The watch is not on table ». After some silence, adds: « it is directly amusing, I sit on watch ». Again having kept silence a little, he speaks craftily: « Yes, it is very ridiculous; ordinarily my ears are not there ».
5. — on February, 16, 1909, experience with Jane, at nine o'clock in the evening at the presence of Falck and Demalier, in darkness.
I want to find out, whether a phantom hears on known distance an almost inaudible noise, and to compare hearing of strong and very easy noises.
Having ascertained once again, that the subject hears nothing with ears, I send a phantom to my desk on distance of four meters from the subject and I ask Demalier to put his watch on head of phantom. « I see, — speaks Jane, — a round subject; this is watch, I hear ticking ».
I give the watch to the experimenter who replaces them. — « I see a watch, — the subject, — but the watch is not the same; this is bigger, and ticking is louder. » It was true.
I take a plate and strongly scratch on it with nails to make a loud scratching sound. — « I hear noise; precisely scratch on a board ». I ask, is this noise loud or weak? — « I well hear it, — but it is not loud » the subject answers.
I softly nails on a plate. Very easy sound is hardly audible. Demalier on distance of one meter. G.Falk does not hear it on 2 meters. — « I hear that scrape on plate as before », — the subject speaks. I ask what sound, the previous is louder or more silent? The subject answers, that he hears the same as before.
I ask Demalier to approach to me as possible closer, not touching me. I softly spend four times with pulp of a finger on plate which is put to the right ear. I hardly hear, and Demalier, in several centimeters from me, hears nothing. — « I hear noise on a plate », — the subject speaks. I ask how many times he heard this noise. — « I did not consider how many ». — Pay attention, I touch four times to a plate. — « I heard the same noise four times ». I spend on the plate once, very easy. G.Demalier who have very good hearing, hears nothing. — « I heard one only time ». I spend a finger three times. — « I heard three times ».
I ask Jane, whether she well hears last sounds, as loud scratching of nails. — « I hear very well, — she, — that sound is not identical, but I hear equally well both those, and others ».
I order to a phantom to remain on a place occupied by him; I depart on one meter of distance and softly spend on a plate two times. — « the Sound has repeated two times ». I depart on two meters and I spend on a plate two times. The subject hears nothing more. I approaches on 25 centimeters and also spend two times on a plate. The subject as though hears something, but he does not distinguish sounds. I approaches on 25 centimeters and I repeat action. — « I heard noise two times », — the subject speaks.
I light on candle which I put on a desk and again I start spend fingers on a plate. On distance of 1,50 m the subject hears nothing, meanwhile as in darkness he heard well. I approach to a phantom on one meter of distance; he hears nothing; very easy sounds only then are audible to him when I approach very close to a phantom. Checking up this fact is rather essential for me, I extinguish candle and again I spend fingers on a plate on distance of one meter, then on 1,50 m from a phantom, and the subject hears. The experiences of hearing rather frequently repeated, in the most various conditions and with all measures of a guarantee, always yielded the same results with all subjects, even when last, tired or not suited, were unable to make other phenomena.
So, we have, if even only in theories, four attires, four bodies in which the soul also consistently get dressed, then leaves, when they will be worn out, the bodies having own existence in three plans of the nature. Knowing characteristic features of each of them, it is possible to find out easily on experiences, at the presence of what body we are.
Between 1850 and 1866 Reichenbach has proved that for clairvoyants in full darkness the person shines with beautiful colors, blue to the right, yellow, orange or reddish — we shall tell orange — on the left. In 1882, having begun with experiences which have allowed me to formulate the physical laws managing actions of magnetism, I have described the overview in ,,Magnetic physics ». De-Roche, Luis and other researchers have confirmed them.
The result of this overview will serve us as a point of support, for opinion about two subtle bodies penetrating through our seen body and splitting in "separation".
I am in a dark room with the subject who I shall separate, and with several witnesses among which is one good clairvoyant, capable of separation, but taking place in a condition of wakefulness and full consciousness.
In some minutes two clairvoyants says that by them, as well as I and all witnesses, are made brilliant, shine beautiful blue light on the right and not less beautiful orange on the left.
These colorful shades as though belong to physical body, but it is incorrect.
I lull the subject who even as though is more brilliant than before. I exteriorise him. He becomes less brilliant, keeping the colors, and during 1 — 1, 5 meters air around of him too is done brilliant, but without colors. I continue magnetize and I make separation. The physical body becomes completely dark, the subject at all does not see itself though he sees all witnesses, and the body of a phantom not only is very brilliant, but it shines blue light on the right, orange on the left similarly as the body of the subject has shone several minutes ago.
All light matter has passed, hence, from physical body to a phantom. But of what bodies consist the last? — It is obvious, that he will consist of invisible bodies, and physical body, on picturesque expression of Leontine, this minute — « is only empty bag ».
We go further. We believe that the etheric body rather seldom abandons physical body and never leaves him because it should support the vital energy necessary to him for existence. If we shall suggest to a phantom to leave on some kilometers, to go, for example, to ourselves, to look, what there occurs, then there will happen rather remarkable phenomenon on eyes of the subject and awake clairvoyant. In a body of phantom there happens the same separation. It is done more brilliant, but loses the blue and orange shades covering him from both sides which pass in body of the subject, again beginning to shine. The phantom leaves, passing through the nearest wall; he executes the task and comes back to the place left, the side of the subject. He still shines white light. Gradually he accepts color shades, loses partly dazzling whiteness, and the body of the subject becomes completely dark.
What has taken place? Is easily to understand. The etheric body making a body of a phantom has returned to the body of subject for maintenance of life, and the phantom has left with the astral body as the instrument.
This experience is easy to carry out; it is checked by various ways mutually confirming each other.
When the subject is separating spontaneously, he always sees that the phantom soaring above him shines with more or less bright white light.
When the subject has easy fallen asleep in the bed, and the phantom of him goes to be shown far, as on experiences in VI, he always shines white light without color. In both cases the etheric body was not separated from physical body and the seen body (for clairvoyants) of a phantom will consist of an astral body, more brilliant, than etheric body.
Other proof, that it is so: subjects clairvoyants see sometimes a phantom of dead and see him always brilliant, but without color. And except for subjects on experiences all persons seeing in known circumstances died, always saw them in the brilliant form without color. The reason of this phenomenon is easy for determining. The soul has left with the astral body as the instrument, having abandoned for decomposition end following death physical and etheric bodies from which she was separated for ever. And when she will wish to see somebody from relatives, she is shown in the astral body which became her unique external attire, because it is her unique body, the unique instrument.
On my experiences the truth is that some subjects saw an astral body with colors as opposed to etheric body, but I believe that if the first happens really, that it seems to me almost authentic that this can see only very strong clairvoyants, and that only when they pay all attention to it.
Therefore I think proved enough, that when the phantom shines beautiful blue and orange light on the right and on the left, he has tangible, seen (for clairvoyants) etheric body; when he is more brilliant, but without color painting on his tangible body, his external attire will consist only of an astral body. In splitting subjects strong clairvoyant sees this brilliant sphere which seems to them of incomparable beauty; it soars above head of a phantom to which it is connected by very brilliant energy cord. I have obtained rather remarkable picture of this sphere,(http://www.theosophy.ru/lib/durv15.jpg)fig., on a glass plate wrapped up in black paper and put on left side of Leontiny, at height of spleen, at that minute, when the scared phantom has rushed to the subject to enter him. It was on June, 26, 1908, on 6 o'clock in the evening, at the presence of Mrs. Dangle. Dubo, Fardo and major Darzhe.
Doctor Baraduke frequently obtained prints on which the brilliant sphere is seen above the person represented in an objective. Sometimes this sphere forms light around of head.(http://www.theosophy.ru/lib/durv16.jpg)A Fig. represents the medium-mystic doctor in London who treats the patient with a pray, assigning hands. On fig. doctor Baraduke, in ecstasy of devotion is represented. Last photo especially shows us, that this phenomenon of separation never happens in ordinary conditions of life and, to observe it, it is necessary to leave the Corporal. :heh:
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.
Quote from: the voice of silenceQbeac,
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.
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.
Quote from: MisterJingoQuote from: qbeac
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.
Hi qbeac,
You are correct. But it is more than the fact that brain can trick a person into believing fallacies though (one only needs to look at false memory syndrome which has been proven to occur through hypnotic regression, and other research where false memories have been implanted in people by simply showing them doctored photographs of their childhood). My need for proof comes from the possibility that mind is the product of brain (which would mean AP is purely brain generated, and the afterlife is wishful thinking). As much as this idea is repulsive, there is still a lot of interesting research which shows how mind function can be attributed to specific areas of brain. If AP is what people claim, then it is one of the best ways to achieve proof that the mind is possibly independent of the brain.
Even people at the forefront of AP like Monroe stated many times that you shouldn't take a belief of what AP is until you have enough evidence to make it a known.
Billion names of God, I have been projecting since earliest childhood. My experiences have been intricate and consistent, yet this is not proof of what people claim AP to be. It shows I am experiencing states which seem to be outside the confines of my body. And during a lot of these projections my mind has been more brilliant and vibrant than in any waking state. I have literally been super aware, and the experience has been more 'real' than waking reality. I am a frequent LD'er so can distinguish between AP and LD. I have seen the 'silver cord' (although it's a faint luminous green to me). I have met gods and devils, been taken to the genesis of creation and the end of the world. I have been placed in a machine which let me perceive the entirety of creation etc. In general, during these experiences I have been shown a lot, but none prove that it is more than brain induced. Each experience starts with me entering trance, inducing the vibrations (which I feel might have something to do with DMT release and trance reduced sensory input increasing its effect), and then 'rolling' out. Usually sight is limited until I get around 6 feet away. I look around; I am in my bedroom as it looks in reality. And then I go explore. If such experiences do not meet the criteria of OBE, then I would say the vast majority of people who have ever projected have not actually OBE'd too.
I also do not believe that OBE is actually outside of the body. The brain cannot distinguish between imagination and sensory input of the 'external' world. Do a google for this information, experiments where people have increased muscle mass over that of a control group by simply visualisations of working out. Also we have to consider that what we see as external reality is actually mind generated. Sensory organs do not emit information; they suck it up into the brain. The brain generates a representation of what it perceives the information to mean (this is a fascinating area in itself, google how little information the eyes can actually perceive, and how much the brain adds to our visual world to 'fill it out'), and we exist within that representation. So anything you ever taste, touch, feel, see, or experience is actually a purely internal experience. We forever interact with a mind generated representation based on sensory information. I see going out of body as moving from one mind generated state (reality) to another (Astral).
I'm not sure what would constitute good enough proof qbeac, most philosophers rule out a solipsism view of realty on the grounds that we cannot truly tell if everything is mind generated or not, so we might as well act as if it isn't, and everyone else we see is actually a sentient being. I guess proof for me would be to amass some data which holds up to scrutiny of others in the physical. I believe that if the AP state is real, and the energy, energy bodies etc are real too. Then at some point science will be able to detect them. It's easy to take something for ones self, say I believe and that is all that matters. But that is not enough for me. I have a scientific upbringing so perhaps that's where this desire originates :)
I honestly and utterly can't believe I'm reading this.
I'm in shock.
Here's someone who things it's all nonsense and all in his mind.
I really don't know how to respond to that.
You really are fooling yourself that's it's all just a dream and imagination?
I honestly can't believe it, I can't believe people out there have these experiences and thing it's all just a dream.
You want physical proof?
It's 2005, well 2006, and we don't have it, we'll never have it.
I mean if you see something or someone somewhere in the RTZ, that is verified later, that's all the proof you need. This kind of proof is still not good enough for scientists.
You don't need every scientist to believe before you believe.
Once you realise we live in a multi-dimentional universe and you can't bring those dimensions down into the real world in "proof".
Heck cosmologists make more leaps of faith that you do. Scientists believe more crazy things than you do !
They believe in things like parallel worlds and so on,
*THEY HAVE NO PROOF*.
In think your argument well and truly sucks.
You can all site around debating proof, but you'll never find it.
If you don't know why, you won't you just aren't there yet.
You know what happened to the guy who send we went arond the Sun.
He had proof.
They locked him up for being a heretic.
They only pardoned him a few years ago!
Wake up and smell the roses, it's not about proof.
Quote from: BillionNamesofGod
I honestly and utterly can't believe I'm reading this.
I'm in shock.
Here's someone who things it's all nonsense and all in his mind.
I really don't know how to respond to that.
You really are fooling yourself that's it's all just a dream and imagination?
I honestly can't believe it, I can't believe people out there have these experiences and thing it's all just a dream.
You want physical proof?
It's 2005, well 2006, and we don't have it, we'll never have it.
I mean if you see something or someone somewhere in the RTZ, that is verified later, that's all the proof you need. This kind of proof is still not good enough for scientists.
You don't need every scientist to believe before you believe.
Once you realise we live in a multi-dimentional universe and you can't bring those dimensions down into the real world in "proof".
Heck cosmologists make more leaps of faith that you do. Scientists believe more crazy things than you do !
They believe in things like parallel worlds and so on,
*THEY HAVE NO PROOF*.
In think your argument well and truly sucks.
You can all site around debating proof, but you'll never find it.
If you don't know why, you won't you just aren't there yet.
You know what happened to the guy who send we went arond the Sun.
He had proof.
They locked him up for being a heretic.
They only pardoned him a few years ago!
Wake up and smell the roses, it's not about proof.
Please quote where I ever said it is nonsense. This is this kind of thing I'm trying to escape from. I know a lot of people who consider themselves to be occultists, or white witches or qabalists or initiates. Yet the second you mention proof they get offended and upset, like you are questioning their entire belief system. Rather than be reasonable and look at all the arguments, they get hysterical; denounce science and anyone who holds it in favour (whilst ignoring the miracles of science all around them which lets them lead long and healthy lives). Science is simply a methodology of producing repeatable facts in reality. That's all it is. And its track record is pretty damn good. Because science does not follow my own belief, does not mean I will ignore it totally.
I will give consideration to any theory regarding AP which holds some weight. For example, I have had experiences which seem to suggest AP is real. But the newly emerging facts about consciousness and the brain are very hard to ignore, so I don't discount it and keep it as a possibility. I generally refute such things which are too ludicrous to my current understanding of reality, such as if someone stated the apple tree in my back garden is really a supercomputer and I'm living in a hologram it is creating, I would generally disbelieve them.
Just because I question the experience does not mean I am questioning your experiences. If your demand of proof means a single projection tells you everything you need to know then that is fine. I am looking for something more. A million lifetimes could be wasted by getting bogged down in dogma and ignoring the underlying source.
I agree that it is possible to be blinded by science, but at the other end of the spectrum, I believe it is possible to get bogged down by belief systems - becoming caught in an illusion of unfounded belief.
I believe one of the reason we are on Earth is to learn critical thinking, and to totally throw it away because what it suggests upsets what we want to belief – that is losing sight of the goal before even setting out on the journey.
If the astral truly exists (which I believe it does) and the physical is part of the astral, then surely scientific discoveries will hold meaning to all areas of the astral? We might not be at a sufficient level to comprehend everything, or have the technology to detect the astral yet, but if it is there, we will eventually detect it with science.
For all the evil we attribute to science, without we would literally be living for about 30 years in very unhygienic conditions with no education and bogged down with massive superstition. Is that form of life really preferable?
I don`t know, guys, I may be wrong, but I think that, if OBE was only our immagination or hallucination, it would be so much easier to achieve. ;)
Quote from: IvandaI don`t know, guys, I may be wrong, but I think that, if OBE was only our immagination or hallucination, it would be so much easier to achieve. ;)
If thats the case, wouldnt we easily be able to hallucinate anything at will? :) There would be no need for drugs as we could create such states ourselves.
Look into DMT production in the brain and read upon DMT experiences, which include vibrations, astral like environments and even alien abduction experiences. One belief of mine is that DMT either creates the experience, or that DMT facilitates the passage into the astral.
I could aslo add that a lot of the most recent gurus on AP have all had scientific leanings over mystical leanings. They happily incorporated science and AP, and most modern techniques such as binaural beats and sound and light machines (Which have had massive success in initiating OBEs) also work on the prinicible of altering the physical brain to create these experiences. So science is already within the AP sphere.
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.
Quote from: MisterJingoPlease 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.
Quote from: MisterJingo
Please quote where I ever said it is nonsense. This is this kind of thing I'm trying to escape from. I know a lot of people who consider themselves to be occultists, or white witches or qabalists or initiates. Yet the second you mention proof they get offended and upset, like you are questioning their entire belief system. Rather than be reasonable and look at all the arguments, they get hysterical; denounce science and anyone who holds it in favour (whilst ignoring the miracles of science all around them which lets them lead long and healthy lives).
Again I can't believe I'm reading this stuff. I don't know why you've assumed I'm occultist, white witch, qablalists, I never talk of such things, so you need to put that to rest. It's you who's making these grand assumptions.
I would say I'm a well read scientist (with a degree in computer science), and I know the scientific methods, and spend as much time reading science magazines, forums, and journals as I do here, more so.
What I do understand is the scientific process, and I've examined it very carefully, and you should too. You'll find the new discoveries are labeled as heracy, the peer review takes decades to resolve disputes, and scientists aren't all uniform. One scientist may have showed how if you create parallel worlds, it solves all his computational problem, and can explain things better. His paper get's buried and igorned for many many decade, and during his time labelled a nutcase by his peers, even though nothing he says could be actually proved. Every other scientist just regarding this as complete nonsense, and certainly had no proof, but showing things do work out better, and the forces of the universe can be made to work, if we put in parallel worlds. To most scientists, to believe in parallel worlds, is heracy itself, worse than believing in God.
The maths do work out and a few cosmologists believe in parallel worlds, the majority don't.
Quote from: MisterJingo
Science is simply a methodology of producing repeatable facts in reality. That's all it is. And its track record is pretty damn good. Because science does not follow my own belief, does not mean I will ignore it totally.
I will give consideration to any theory regarding AP which holds some weight. For example, I have had experiences which seem to suggest AP is real. But the newly emerging facts about consciousness and the brain are very hard to ignore, so I don't discount it and keep it as a possibility. I generally refute such things which are too ludicrous to my current understanding of reality, such as if someone stated the apple tree in my back garden is really a supercomputer and I'm living in a hologram it is creating, I would generally disbelieve them.
Well, that's it you aren't capable of taking the great mental leaps of imagination that true scientists can take, like Einstien.
You as I predicted to myself, will never believe or even consider these theories like we all live in a supercomputer. This is actually a sound solid thought experiment, it is sound, generated by scientists who don't believe in occult mumbo jumbo. These are sound valid theories of cosmology with no true scientist can disprove.
They are actually very plausable, if you know you physics you'll know it's too wierd to be a co-incidence. So god might as well be some super geek with a super computer, it is possible, there is no proof to disprove it isn't.
If you know something about Fractals, you will realise complex reality can be simulated with simple 4th dimensional imaginary number maths. Yes maths with imaginary numbers. Go figure. I don't understand imaginary maths, but I can program a computer with a Fractal - it works.
Quantum Physists can't explain most things either, God does play dice, you can't predict where things are going to be, it's all too wierd, but ** THEY JUST GET ON WITH IT * and produce cool devices like lasers and so on. The effects are predictable! But how physics particles work isn't. One scientist wins the nobel prize for proving light is a particle, and another scientist proves light is a particle and wins a nobel prize.
It appears that scientists have more open mind than you have. How can a light be a wave and particle at the same time? Well who cares, really? scientists don't they just change hats and produce things. no-one to this day can prove this light thing. But if you subscribe to parallel world theory it's quite easily explained, but you'll have no proof, but it works. It's because the light wasn't a particle or wave in the first place, that's what we get depending how we *OBSERVE* it. It's actually a completely different multi-dimentional object - we all are. What you see in real life is just what you see and percieve, it's now how it really is. Like light humans are multi-dimensional beings. We aren't all we observe in the physical world, if you leave all your basis in the physical world, you'll never explain anything. Even many scientists are now working in quantum consiousness - the brain is actually a quantum computer, it truly is a doorway to other dimensions. If you only take into account the Real Time zone, all you see is a human brain, dreaming or imagining. * IT IS NOT DREAMING *.
You really should read quantum consiouness things and parallel world things, and all those grand theries on cosmology - you'll realise quantum mechanics, is a glimpse of other dimensions! It not weird, if you imagine other dimenstions, things can appear and disappear in quantum physics, they only make sense if you bring in other dimensions. So once you do, the brain is a Quantum Computer it's not just dreaming anymore.
many great scientists believe this. Naturally at these stage of human evolution, they are labelled as heretics. THey are not. They are right.
It will take many thousands of years for scientists to agree.
Roger Penrose a respected scientist believes in Quantum Consiousness.
99% of other scientists probably don't. He's regarded as a heretic.
But he's pretty much spot on and in time his peers will see.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/penrose/penr.htm
So as time goes by you'll find more and more nonsense in science to you, science to you will just might as be occult mumbo jumbo, it really is, infact to you, that's what you can't see. Infact what you can't see Astral Projection is more touchable and experienceable. A scientist can neve see his parallel world or enter it - you can enter yours, and you can't see how amazing that is, you have things scientists would kill for, and you can't see it, you are wasting it. That is my sorrow.
well you are wrong, you are so wrong you don't know it. Science is not about repeatable facts in reality, they are still proving Einstiens theory, and proof has only recently come, and repeatable. Before then the maths was so elegant, and clearly undisputable, but it's not proof, that came much much later. "Einstien said imagination is more important than knowledge", he is right, every theory starts in someones mind, Einstien by simply assuming light travelled the same speed everywhere with *THOUGHT* experiments, came with startling conclusions.
So Einstien knew very much how important the imagination was, more so than you. Every new scientific idea starts off in someones imagination. Proof comes much later.
Only recently were they proved, but scientists could not really prove them or disprove his maths. This is so of Parallel worlds and all the crazy cosmology theories being floated about. They really have no proof, and they never will. Cosmology is crazier than Astral Projection, but they are quite happy to enter this imaginary worlds and imagine what causes them.
That's what a true scientist does. You not so.
Even Robert Monroe and complete skeptic and scientist opened his mind, and remained a scientist throughout - he just explored and looked for answers, you are looking for answers where you won't find them.
He created a whole Instutite and respected as a scientist and skeptic.
Now, if you are so lucky enough to have so many OBEs and you dismiss them so readily, do you have the open mind and character to writes books, explore and create Institutes like Monroe did as a skeptic? I think not.
Quote from: MisterJingo
Just because I question the experience does not mean I am questioning your experiences. If your demand of proof means a single projection tells you everything you need to know then that is fine. I am looking for something more. A million lifetimes could be wasted by getting bogged down in dogma and ignoring the underlying source.
I agree that it is possible to be blinded by science, but at the other end of the spectrum, I believe it is possible to get bogged down by belief systems - becoming caught in an illusion of unfounded belief.
I believe one of the reason we are on Earth is to learn critical thinking, and to totally throw it away because what it suggests upsets what we want to belief – that is losing sight of the goal before even setting out on the journey.
Hey this is all about you trust, me you are the own questioning your experiences, I'm quite happy I know the truth.
You demand something more? You will never find it, stop wasting your time and move on. You still don't understand why. One scientist believes in parallel worlds the other doesn't. They can't prove it either way.
They don't waste time trying to disprove each other's beliefs. They get on with thier version of events and get on with it. You aren't providing anything valuable, but being a hardened skeptic and staying in that camp, it's you who doesn't have the open mind, even though the experiences are starting you right in the face.
If you think you or anyone can find proof for the whole world to see, in your lifetime, or many lifetimes over, you really are foolish and can't see the wood for the trees. Trust me it will never happen in your life time, so stop fretting over it. Get it and move and make a contribution to the field that can be laid bare in history for future generations to admire.
Quote from: MisterJingo
If the astral truly exists (which I believe it does) and the physical is part of the astral, then surely scientific discoveries will hold meaning to all areas of the astral? We might not be at a sufficient level to comprehend everything, or have the technology to detect the astral yet, but if it is there, we will eventually detect it with science.
For all the evil we attribute to science, without we would literally be living for about 30 years in very unhygienic conditions with no education and bogged down with massive superstition. Is that form of life really preferable?
Why do you believe the Astral exists? You have no proof you can give me. So why do you believe? I know you can not show me proof, so what makes you make such a grand conclusion?
As I said before, read up on your science, a flatlander will never see, feel or touch the 3rd dimension, he can only imagine it, he well never have proof. We will never have proof of the 4th dimention, you simply have to take that leap of faith. It will always just appear in your mind.
I hope you can get a glimse of what I'm trying to say. One day you'll wake and see the world in a different light.
Quote from: BillionNamesofGod
Again I can't believe I'm reading this stuff. I don't know why you've assumed I'm occultist, white witch, qablalists, I never talk to such things, so you need to put that to rest. It's you who's making this grand assumptions.
I would say I'm a well read scientist, and I know the scientific methods, and spend as much time reading science magazines, forums, and journals as I do here, more so.
What I do understand is the scientific process, and I've examined it very carefully, and you should you. You'll find the new discoveries are labeled as heracy, the peer review takes decades to resolve disputes, and scientists aren't all uniform. One scientist may have showed how if you create parallel worlds, it solves all his computational problem, and can explain things better. Every other scientist just regarding this as complete nonsense, and certainly had no proof, but showing things do work out better, and the forces of the universe can be made to work, if we put in parallel worlds. To most scientists, to believe in parallel worlds, is heracy itself, worse than believing in God.
The maths do work out and a few cosmologists believe in parallel worlds, the majority don't.
I did not assume you are any of those things or make any grand assumptions, you are simply misinterpreting my words, or just choosing to not understand.
To date, the vast bulk of all written information on AP exists within the occult domain, and so to all extents and purposes, most people consider AP to be an occult art (even if you do not), that is what I was getting at.
I also know the scientific process because I am actually a scientist and so use it frequently.
What specific research are you talking about when regarding parallel worlds? There have been many purely subjective theories which state there are multiple worlds/parallel dimensions based upon either misinterpretation of quantum/M theory or our lack of understanding of the current result sets.
The reason there is so much disagreement in these fields is because the vast majority of the science to date is purely theoretical, it has no empirical evidence to back it up. And in such circumstances there should be such disagreement to ensure we do not believe anything with no proof.
Maths can really be made to fit anything. There are mathematical models of 4-11+ dimensions which incorporate parallel worlds, but they are purely math with no supporting evidence – so they are discounted until evidence is either found to support those models or discount them.
Quote
Well, that's it you aren't capable of taking the great mental leaps of imagination that true scientists can take, like Einstien.
You as I predicted to myself, will never believe or even consider these theries like we all live in a supercomputer. This is actually a sound solid thought experiment, it is sound, generated by scientists who don't believe in occult mumbo jumbo. These are sound valid theories of cosmology with no true scientist can disprove.
They are actually very plausable, if you know you physics you'll know it's too wierd to be a co-incidence. So god might as well be some super geek with a super computer, it is possible, there is no proof to disprove it isn't.
If you know something about Fractals, you will realise complex reality can be simulated with simple 4th dimensional imaginary number maths. Yes maths with imaginary numbers. Go figure. I don't understand imaginary maths, but I can program a computer with a Fractal - it works.
Quantum Physists can't explain most things either, God does play dice, you can't predict where things are going to be, it's all too wierd, but ** THEY JUST GET ON WITH IT * and produce cool devices like lasers and so on. The effects are predictable! But how physics particles work isn't.
So as time goes by you'll find more and more nonsense in science to you, science to you will just might as be occult mumbo jumbo, it really is, infact to you, that's what you can't see. Infact what you can't see Astral Projection is more touchable and experienceable. A scientist can neve see his parallel world or enter it - you can enter yours, and you can't see how amazing that is, you have things scientists would kill for, and you can't see it, you are wasting it. That is my sorrow.
well you are wrong, you are so wrong you don't know it. Science is not about repeatable facts in reality, they are still proving Einstiens theory, and proof has only recently come, and repeatable. Before then the maths was so elegant, and clearly undisputable, but it's not proof, that came much much later. "Einstien said imagination is more important than knowledge", he is right, every theory starts in someones mind, Einstien by simply assuming light travelled the same speed everywhere with *THOUGHT* experiments, came with startling conclusions.
So Einstien knew very much how important the imagination was, more so than you. Every new scientific idea starts off in someones imagination. Proof comes much later.
Only recently were they proved, but scientists could not really prove them or disprove his maths. This is so of Parallel worlds and all the crazy cosmology theories being floated about. They really have no proof, and they never will. Cosmology is crazier than Astral Projection, but they are quite happy to enter this imaginary worlds and imagine what causes them.
That's what a true scientist does. You not so.
Even Robert Monroe and complete skeptic and scientist opened his mind, and remained a scientist throughout - he just explored and looked for answers, you are looking for answers where you won't find them.
He created a whole Instutite and respected as a scientist and skeptic.
Now, if you are so lucky enough to have so many OBEs and you dismiss them so readily, do you have the open mind and character to writes books, explore and create Institutes like Monroe did as a skeptic? I think not.
Please show me where Einstein made any great mental leap. He simply used theories which were already suggesting relativity and places them together. Yes he was the person who did it, but if he hadn't, the data and research which already existed would have given us such theories through a different route anyway.
Einstein was in fact very set in his ways and refuted the suggestions of quantum theory, spending the last years of his life as virtual recluse trying to create a theory of everything which didn't require QM.
I will consider such theories of living in a super computer is they held up to scrutiny, I was giving an absolutely absorbed example and yet you chose to misinterpret me again.
You say you know the scientific theory very well, which would suggest your grasp of logic is impeccable, yet you haven't used any logic in your reply to me. You chose parts of what I say, misinterpret them, and then rave off on tangents.
Quantum physicists don't actually just get on with it. What scientific journals do you read? The last journal I read earlier this week was littered with articles about scientists who tried recreate a publish experiment, failed and so refuted the findings. This is the method of science.
Regarding the predictability of the physics they work with, on a great enough scale they produce probability curves which allow them to become predictable. Our use of quantum theory in every day electronics shows these sciences can and are predictable.
I admit there is a lot of quantum theory which looks strange to our logic, but that is due to us not having the mathematic knowledge to solve such problems yet. If you know of string theory, then you would know that the mathematics we are currently using is just an estimation of the equations we believe we need to solve problems in that field. A lack of understanding does not mean impossible to understand, or to make predictable.
Quote
Even Robert Monroe and complete skeptic and scientist opened his mind, and remained a scientist throughout - he just explored and looked for answers, you are looking for answers where you won't find them.
He created a whole Instutite and respected as a scientist and skeptic.
Now, if you are so lucky enough to have so many OBEs and you dismiss them so readily, do you have the open mind and character to writes books, explore and create Institutes like Monroe did as a skeptic? I think not.
You contradict yourself above. Monroe remained a sceptic of his experiences for a very long time. And when he did move his belief to the astral was where people went on death, he used science to attempt to explain this new area. Not only that, he used scientific theory to allow others to experience this area too.
He did not at any point use belief, or set aside the scientific principles, and even the Monroe institute now tell people to not act as if beliefs are solid fact (knowns).
If could add anything new to the science of AP I would happily write a book, and if I had the funding I would happily open such an institute as it is something very close to my own heart.
Quote
Hey this is all about you trust, me you are the own questioning your experiences, I'm quite happy I know the truth.
You demand something more? You will never find it, stop wasting your time and move on. You still don't understand why. One scientist believes in parallel worlds the other doesn't. They can't prove it either way.
They don't waste time trying to disprove each other's beliefs. They get on with thier version of events and get on with it. You aren't providing anything valuable, but being a hardened skeptic and staying in that camp, it's you who doesn't have the open mind, even though the experiences are starting you right in the face.
If you think you or anyone can find proof for the whole world to see, in your lifetime, or many lifetimes over, you really are foolish and can't see the wood for the trees. Trust me it will never happen in your life time, so stop fretting over it. Get it and move and make a contribution to the field that can be laid bare in history for future generations to admire.
If any scientist ever thought "I cant prove this in my life time, so I'll just give up" then we would be living in a primitive state still. Because something might not be proved in the near future does not mean people cannot set the ground work for it.
As I have said before, people have been experiencing AP throughout the history of mankind (evidence can be found in all cultures). Where has that history of pure experience and not attempting to research the mechanics of the experience gotten us? Absolutely nowhere. We know little more about the AP experience then man did 2000 years ago.
Please show me where my mind is closed? I have experienced many things in my life time, from the mystical to the drug induced. I am open minded to all things which come my way. My definition of open minded is to actually keep an open mind, not like you just believe what you want as it's preferable to your ego and belief systems. If I was an hardened sceptic I would refute even the possibility of AP, yet I accept that it might be a real possibility. The proof I seek is to the nature of AP itself, which takes into account the nature of mind and reality.
What truth do you know? Do you know that all truth is purely subjective and relative to the observer? Or do you believe you hold a greater truth? The truth I search for is one which can be consistently experienced by many people. The AP scene to date has little to no consistency. Even the leading AP gurus frequently degree on all aspects of the AP experience.
Quote
Why do you believe the Astral exists? You have no proof you can give me. So why do you believe? I know you can not show me proof, so what makes you make such a grand conclusion?
As I said before, read up on your science, a flatlander will never see, feel or touch the 3rd dimension, he can only imagine it, he well never have proof. We will never have proof of the 4th dimention, you simply have to take that leap of faith. It will always just appear in your mind.
I hope you can get a glimse of what I'm trying to say. One day you'll wake and see the world in a different light.
The proof I have regards experiments in the physical which suggest the astral might have some existence. These experiments have involved 3rd parties who had no knowledge of my experiments and independently verified the results of my experiments.
These experiments show a possibility of the astral being more than imagination, and so I have an open mind on the subject. I once did really believe in the astral, but I realised that was being closed minded.
If we take the 4th dimension as time, we already have proof of its existence, not only that, there has been interesting discussion in scientific journals (which you no doubted know about as you read them) discussing the possibility of time being a state of entropy on a negative curve. This has major implications in regards to causality, free will and determinism.
The question of the astral is much more then just experiencing something and claiming it as fact. The ultimate truth we can currently hope to find is one we will find on death. We either continue to exist, or we don't. But even this is open to other possibilities such as consiciousnes existing in the brain at the point of death due to extreme time dilation. What I mean by this is when the body dies, awarness could exist in the brain and to the 'dead' person, they would continue to exist for a possible very long period of time in their imagiation (Astral). I know there is evidence of deep brain activity a long time after the time of death.
You have strongly declared that science will never understand the astral. What have you got to back up such a claim? You can't quote history (unless its an example from the past decade or so) as the world and society has changed dramatically from an age of people being burnt at the stake for heresy.
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...
the other like MasterJingo, Mendel, Major Tom have been more than helpfull, but it seems all you want to do is pursue this to argument. they have given their testimony and now its time for you to step up and learn the how to project and run your own scientific proof..
i saw no more...:)
tvos
Quote from: the voice of silencethis 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.
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.
Quote from: the voice of silence
the other like MasterJingo, Mendel, Major Tom have been more than helpfull, but it seems all you want to do is pursue this to argument. they have given their testimony and now its time for you to step up and learn the how to project and run your own scientific proof..
i saw no more...:)
tvos
Hey tvos,
It is verging on an argument, but not a serious one :) My only problem here is having a long history of AP and still questioning it's validity seems to annoy billion, so I've just been arguing points back. If all that occurs is the regurgitation of statements with no progress on either side (ie none is willing to accept what the other says) i'd happily stop as it would be getting nowhere and wasting everyones time.
/sigh to all the people who think physical-reality validation tests during OBE prove anything at all...
What it proves is nothing more than that extra-sensory perception exists which most anyone will already admit to. I am not saying OBEs are all in the brain- in fact I believe exactly the opposite. However, these tests do not prove by any full-proof means that an OBE is real or fake or anything inbetween as you would perceive it.
It could be said the proof you're looking for does not exist, and yet we each feel that our personal experiences (whatever they may be) have lent us the proof we need to validate our personal beliefs (whatever those may be as well). The truth is there will never be solid proof, there will always be cracks that ask "but what if?" There are only possibilities, and our faith towards choosing from them.
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?
Quote from: TomboThe 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.
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
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 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.
Quote from: qbeacHello MisterJingo and BillionNamesofGod,
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.
Thanks for your post this makes lot of sense and put's perspective on the whole issue.
Basically, Level 1 Validation is good enough for me
For Master Jingo, he needs Level 3 Validation to make Astral Projection real for him, no matter what he experiences.
Hence the conflict, if we agree on the point above everything is fine.
The trouble arisis when I think Why does MisterJingo Want Level 3 validation? All the great Astral Projectors don't, I mean do we really need it.
I've thought about this for a long time, and concluded it's a waste of time.
We will never have Level 3 Validation in our lifetimes, and I understand clearly why, the reasons why, are way out there, equal to saying " I believe in UFO, crop circles".
It's like :
Billion: I believe in ghosts, I don't need any proof, or will waste time in proof, as we'll never proof ghosts in my lifetime for sure.
Jingo: I don't believe in Ghosts, I think I've seen one, and it did look like a Ghost, but until all scientists have 100% proof, and everyone believes in Ghosts, I won't accept that Ghosts exist.
See? We've both seen Ghosts, but completely different stance!
This is where we are. So the problem is "how to we provide level 3 validation for Ghosts?"
The answer to me is simple, we won't. Ghosts exist in a parallel dimension we can't touch while awake. So my belief is simple, it's a waste of time trying to find Level 3 Validation for Ghosts.
I respect people who want to proof ghosts, and all these GhostHunters, they will contribute, but no proof will emerge in their lifetimes.
I mean what shocks me is such a massive difference in opinion on two people on the same path of New Age knowledge.
But I agree with others, It's time to understand where we stand so we can move forwards.
So What am I? I believe in Ghosts. I don't need proof.
Jingo, is a Astral Projection type Ghost Hunter. Rather than proving Ghosts, he wants to Proof Astral Projection. This is a very respectful professiona and Goal in Life. I respect and understand it and will help.
But it's not my focus, it does no hinder me from exploring the unknown.
Ok I'm being harsh, I want MisterJingo to believe and just get on with it, and no waste time on proof, this is a very selfish atitutude, I admit, and do apologise, I just there are better things he could do, that could add to the body of believers.
But hey I respect your position, I hope you respect mine, just have to agree to understand each other Mind Sets and belief systems, and move on. My opinion is simple, I think Level 3 Validation is a waste of time.
But I respect any person who wishes to take this giant on, as they will indeed spend their whole life dealing with skeptic types, hardly fun!
;-)
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 :oops: It's a bad habit of mine :wink:
Quote from: MisterJingoHi 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 :oops: It's a bad habit of mine :wink:
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.
;-)
Quote from: BillionNamesofGodQuote from: MisterJingoHi 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 :oops: It's a bad habit of mine :wink:
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.
Quote from: qbeac
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.
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?
Quote from: BillionNamesofGodYes, 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
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.
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
Here some quotes. On all sciences the censor? In advances of knowledge there are no aprioristic criteria of "correctness", academician Nathalie Bekhtereva considers.
,,The Russian scientific newspaper ,, has placed excerpts from the message which was made at Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences by chairman of the Commission of struggle against pseudo-science :witch: academician E.P.Krugljakov. :spider:
Pseudo scholars, wheeler-dealers from a science and outspoken Swindlers as the author asserts, cause serious damage to society as have penetrated even into the supreme echelons of power, including state structures. Daring such publication we thus expected to encourage readers on open-hearted conversation. The first responses, mostly emotional, have followed immediately. And the letter from Saint Petersburg, signed by the head of studies of Institute of human brain of the Russian academy of Sciences, the head of Laboratory of neurophysiology of thought processes, creativity and consciousness, the academician of Russian Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Medical Sciences Nathalie Petrovna Bekhtereva has not kept itself waiting. And, certainly, we hope on continuation of dialogue.
The modern physics is practically finished, with exception of two little clouds nothing will sadden its horizon - approximately so has been told by the top scientific authority lord Calvin on boundary of XIX and XX centuries. At the end of XX century many physicists represent the opinion, that the building of physics is constructed almost up to the end, with exception of certain marginal problems. Perhaps, for this reason some from them have taken the right and honorary duties of censorship from science - began ,,to check on correctness ,,hypotheses from different areas of knowledge.
As reason for this letter served fragments from statement of chairman of the Commission for struggle against pseudo-science academician Krugljakov at session of Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences (where, by the way, he has been seriously criticized) published in ,,the Russian scientific newspaper ". The academician – physicist considers itself for qualified to categorically criticize a physiological article. We shall notice: published not somewhere, but in šeer reviewed magazine of Russian Academy of Sciences ,,Human physiology " – the article has past all procedures appropriate in such cases.
That publication has really been devoted to research of rather unusual phenomenon. Several years ago in Institute of human brain of the Russian Academy of Sciences people claiming the ability to see with closed eyes have addressed. And not only one person, but a group of youth, and as affirmed it was possible to master these skills. Certainly, it would be the easiest way to answer, that we are engaged in serious scientific problems and we are not interested in laymans.
However long-term experience in studying human brain has taught us to respect its capabilities.
Our team already more than fifty years studies extremely complex and fascinating problem - the organization of supreme functions of a healthy and unhealthy human brain. We research, what occurs in a human brain by perception and pronouncing of words, by various thought processes.
We investigate interaction of emotions and thinking, we try to understand, how the brain perceives pain and parts where illusions are formed...
This fundamental knowledge allows us to develop new, hi-tech methods of treatment. We cooperate with various scientific institutes. Our works are widely known and published in domestic and foreign peer rewieved magazines. On this way it was revealed a lot of interesting things including such, that not at once was accepted by scientific community. But all the same it was accepted. Therefore it is quite natural, that to us people with daring ideas and offers quite often address. From them we check some.
So was in the abovementioned case. We have invited guys and have asked them to execute the tasks developed by us.
I shall not describe all details - interested persons can find them in the abovementioned scientific article. Result: 100 percent of right answers! :thumbsup: Thus, we have established that the phenomenon exists, and though much still remains not clear, it is interesting to be engaged in it and it should be investigated.
Naturally, so far as the certain scientific research has been done, we have directed its description and conclusions to media. The article as whole has been easy accepted by physiologists, but has done a lot of noise in other areas of science. I think, the calmness of physiologists spokes that, first, they by virtue of the profession faithfully consider the opportunities of human brain, and second, similar things already and earlier were described.
For example, still Helmholtz introduced the concept of color temperature, and it has been shown, that there are people which see with fingers due to change of color temperature. About "blindsight" has been written in sixties. Academician B.P.Konstantinov has organized then in Phystech a group on research of this phenomenon. Scientists have found out nothing, however, as the head of this group told, Konstantin itself in the meantime has learned to distinguish dominoes knuckles from the opposite side.
The present phenomenon has been checked up seriously by us in the conditions completely excluding an opportunity of trivial peeping. If it has not been made, there would be no further researches and articles. ,,Preliminary assumptions ,,what so irritate academician Krugljakov, concerns the understanding of physiological meaning of phenomenon. It is known, that not all existing phenomena give us an explication that quite often does not prevent their practical application. However thoughts about the possible (probable) explications, made as assumptions, are quite allowable in experimental work. It is interesting as alternative vision but if it is something other, it too is interesting. It is important also, that children with serious defects of vision saw in the alternative way better, than "directly". Perhaps, it will give chance to help visually impaired. But how to realize it? If pilot research can be executed ,,off the cuff " and on pure enthusiasm, the organization of serious works needs special financing.
The air has begun to smell of money (unfortunately, not for us). It was enough for interest on the part of the Commission of pseudo-science. The criticism also began. Academician Krugljakov edits the story, and it becomes simple "horror story". Here are present distorting and direct lies. You must not know the history of my family (let alone the text of the letter so not liked by the head of the commission) to imagine, how I ,,actively suggest ,,to work with secret services. Other suspicion – on misappropriation of budgetary funds by us - besides does not meet the validity that financial documents prove.
We see in article also a direct insult. The team of authors including members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, members of the international academies and societies, is ranked as ,,pseudo-scientific sharpers " and "speculators". I want to notice, that insults begin when emotions take over reason or when there are no arguments. Basically it can serve as an occasion for trial in court, but I at all do not want to go deep into legal aspects of the affair. :naughty: Much more important for me is conservation of the intra-academic ethics. All of us belong to unique community what the Russian academy of sciences is, that imposes serious obligations on each of us. And smallest of them is the respect to each other and work of colleagues.
And in the end small deviation, some words about my area of a science which I indefinitely love also to which I have devoted all my life. It is known, that in due time set of theories of the greatest physicists appeared insolvent and has been denied in process of development of science. However without these errors which nevertheless were seriously enough discussed, the modern building of physics would not be constructed. Now the science actively investigates other limiting condition of matter: extremely complex community of huge number of cooperating objects, each of which has the most complicated structure. It is human brain, in which about 10 billion neurons!
There are not yet only any theories, but also any plausible hypothesis how the complete brain works. Yes, we already know much about details of its work. But the complete mosaic is far from end. One of examples: nerve cell generates pulses with frequency about (near) 20 in a second. Speed of interaction - milliseconds. So such slow system provides with that image such huge speed of processing of the information? Most likely, such complication of object should inevitable lead to occurrence of new properties.
We do not know limits and opportunities of brain; we do not know also how physical laws with reference to such difficult matter are modified. Therefore if there is something not clear, it is necessary for investigating. There are no aprioristic criteria of correctness or abnormality of a hypothesis or experiment. New theories, daring ideas and non-standard experiments are necessary for understanding of principles underlying brain functioning, certainly, alongside with systematic, so-called routine work. The scientist, who has reached a certain level, should have the right, also opportunity to carry out research in the direction chosen by him even if it is far from seeming to be perspective and correct. Yours faithfully, the academician Nathalie Bekhtereva. :nerd: [url] http://www.matrixf.com/Directvision.pdf(http://galactic.org.ua/W-Bronnicov/f_b/l_met5-2..jpg)
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.
Hello everybody, in relation to the issue of trying to obtain scientific proof, I would like to pose a question for everybody. So far, it seems there are several distinct opinions, for instance:
1- Some people did not know it was possible to obtain scientific proof.
2- Some people think obtaining scientific proof is possible, but it is hard, therefore, it is not worth the effort.
3- Some people think obtaining scientific proof is hard, but it is possible and it is also import to do it for the benefit of human kind, therefore, it is worth the effort.
4- Some people think that even if it is possible to obtain scientific proof, it should not be done due to karmic reasons.
The following is an example of an opinion based on karmic reason (Post #13 & #15, pag. 2, by pmlonline):
http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?t=927&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
Please, what do you think? My opinion is number 3, as I have tried to explain in this thread. Anybody thinks the same way, or perhaps has a different opinion than the ones above?
Thanks. qbeac.
Hey.
What about the evidence already presented, such as Robert Monroe's accounts. In one he not only verified what he saw, but caused a bruise from a pinch he gave someone while there. I've talked to a skeptic who has read Robert's work, but still says it's all hallucination or whatever.
I guess getting a card right or something could be more to their liking as what consitutes proof. But if someone just doesn't want to change their views, they can easily surmise that you may be lying. Is it really possible to prove this stuff then? What are the controls in place to alleviate the notion that you may simply be lying that you saw the cards right?
SO the conclusion is there is no proof? Lol.
Some say there are ways to seeing if they are real, some say that the validity depends upon each individuals own experiences(in other words they are 'real ' to the individual) and some say there is no proof at all.
Basically theres no proof, just a lot of talk lol.
Sheesh guys.
Who needs proof, not the person who already knows for himself, only others need proof.
Lol. Thats stupid man. Its like the Christians saying they know God because they "feel" the holy spirit enters them. "Personal revelation"
Thats just personal spiritual crack.
Quote from: AbrahamLol. Thats stupid man. Its like the Christians saying they know God because they "feel" the holy spirit enters them. "Personal revelation"
Thats just personal spiritual crack.
So how do you know? By reading it in a book??
Denying your own feelings and experiences in favour of something someone else tells you is even more stupid!
Lol. 1+1=2 even if i 'feel' it equals 3.
No matter how much you want to believe ur own personal inclinations, the truth is the truth regardless.
Hello people, there is a participant in the astraldynamics forum, called pmlonline, who says it is possible to provide global proof of OBEs to the scientific community, but nevertheless, it is not wise to provide it due to "karmic" reasons (this is a summary, he has given a longer explanation about it).
To tell you the truth, it was very surprising to me to hear such an argument based on karmic reasons. So far, I have been very much in favour of providing proof. In Spain we have designed a simple method that could provide it (I have explained it in this thread, and it is not the only method that could be used), and we really believe it could be done. We also believe it is important to provide global proof, because that way, many people in the world will realize these experiences are real (I already think they are) and will also be able to benefit from them. But now I am wondering whether what pmlonline says is correct or not.
The question has shifted from: "Is it possible to provide proof?" To, "should we provide proof or not?"
As Shakespeare would say:
To provide proof or not to provide it? That is the question!
Please, what do you think? This is the link (starting at pag. 2, Post #13):
http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?t=927&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
Chao. qbeac.
Quote from: AbrahamLol. 1+1=2 even if i 'feel' it equals 3.
No matter how much you want to believe ur own personal inclinations, the truth is the truth regardless.
then what is the truth oh scholar of the ages?
if this topic had been disproven or proven we would not be discussing it in this little corner of the internet we have. why even bother asking this question when you know it cant be answered.
Im sure if you experienced what some of these people here have your opinion would be changed. But since the system is based on belief and you obviously dont BELIEVE any of it can happen your stuck with reading other peoples experiences. have fun.
Quote from: Ben KQuote from: AbrahamLol. 1+1=2 even if i 'feel' it equals 3.
No matter how much you want to believe ur own personal inclinations, the truth is the truth regardless.
then what is the truth oh scholar of the ages?
if this topic had been disproven or proven we would not be discussing it in this little corner of the internet we have. why even bother asking this question when you know it cant be answered.
Im sure if you experienced what some of these people here have your opinion would be changed. But since the system is based on belief and you obviously dont BELIEVE any of it can happen your stuck with reading other peoples experiences. have fun.
Wow. Its funny how Ill say something rational and everyone will get all spunky about their own confusion and misguidance.
:shock:
Quote from: AbrahamLol. Thats stupid man. Its like the Christians saying they know God because they "feel" the holy spirit enters them. "Personal revelation"
Thats just personal spiritual crack.
It doesnt matter to me that you think its stupid.
Abraham, stop evading the question and answer: what proof do you have for your "truth"?
Hi Abraham, Ben K, Lente, Adun,
In my opinion, it is indeed possible to obtain and to provide proof. There are a number of different ways in which it could be done. For instance, take a look at Post #8, pag. 8 of this thread to see one of them (not the only one):
- Explanation of one of the several possible ways to obtain proof:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=180207#180207
The question now is: Should we or should we not provide global proof to the scientific community?
I personally think we should (I believe it could benefit all humanity), but some people think other wise for other reasons they think are also good reasons, and maybe we all should debate upon this issue and try to find out what is the best option. We are talking about it at link (see Post #12):
http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?p=9299&sid=dfb41431f4365f58ebdadc435d78c991#9299
Un saludo. qbeac.
Abraham Im just curious, why do you believe what you do? Because of what others have told you to believe? Intelligent people use their own judgement and discernment of their own experiences; they dont just parrot things they've heard. Polly want a cracker?
QuoteAbraham Im just curious, why do you believe what you do? Because of what others have told you to believe? Intelligent people use their own judgement and discernment of their own experiences; they dont just parrot things they've heard. Polly want a cracker?
I believe what I believe because of the clear proofs that have come from the Creator unto the Prophet Muhammad sws, not from the whims or fabrications of a human being.
And this prophet Muhammad, how can you be sure what he says is true? Clear proofs do not belong only to one man. That clear proof is not clear to you. So really you have no knowledge of your own, just blind faith in someone elses claims.
Hi Abraham, Ben K, Lente, Adun, MindFreak and everybody else:
The following is an excerpt from the NDE of May, James and Rashad, three friends with three different religions united in the same NDE.
Group NDE Example #2
http://www.near-death.com/group.html
The following group NDE appears in the International Association for Near-Death Studies publication Vital Signs (Volume XIX, No. 3, 2000) and is described in a greater way in Eulitt's book, Fireweaver, published by Xlibris.
During the fall of 1971, when I was 22 years old, I shared a near-death experience with my cousin, James, and his best friend, Rashad, who was from India. Both young men were on a break from school and were staying with my family on our farm. One afternoon the three of us went to the cornfield to cut fodder. To get to the field we had to go through a metal gate, and we took turns climbing down to open and shut it. By late afternoon a storm started brewing in the west, and we decided to quit for the day. It was James' turn to open the gate, and as he did so, he reached up for my arm to climb back up onto the wagon. I was leaning the wrong way, and his weight pulled me toward him. Rashad grabbed my other arm to steady me, and we were in just this position when the lightening hit us.
I saw the lightning sparkle along the top of the gate. The next thing we knew, we were in a large room or hall made of dark stone. The ceiling was so high and the gloom was so thick we couldn't see the top. There were no furnishings or wall hangings, just cold, black stone all around. I knew I should be afraid, but I just felt peaceful, floating along there in the gloom with my two friends in the great, dark hall. The stately walls of this place loomed above us and seemed to radiate both great power and also great masculinity. I remember thinking it would have suited King Arthur. It was at that point that I realized that the three of us were united in thought and body. Images of Arthur came to me from James and Rashad. James saw only a cosmic version of the king. Rashad seemed to [be] envisioning himself in the time of Arthur. As we all became conscious of each other's thoughts, I suddenly knew James and Rashad better than I have ever known anyone else.
We realized there was light coming into the chamber from an archway at one end. It was more than just light. It was a golden, embracing warmth. It gave off a feeling of peace and contentment more intense than anything we had ever felt. We were drawn toward it. We weren't talking, but we were communicating with each other on some other level, seeing through each other's eyes. As we came to the archway and passed through, we entered a beautiful valley.
There were meadows and tree-lined hills that led to tall mountains in the distance. Everything glistened with golden sparks of light.
We saw that the sparkling lights were tiny, transparent bubbles that drifted in the air and sparkled on the grass. We realized that each tiny sparkle was a soul. To me, the valley appeared to be Heaven, but at the same time I knew that James and Rashad were seeing it differently. James saw it as the Gulf of Souls. Rashad saw it as Nirvana, and somehow we knew all this without speaking. The light began gathering at the far end of the valley, and slowly, out of the mist, a pure white being began to materialize. I saw an angel with a strong, bright face, but not like you'd usually imagine. She was closer to a strong, Viking Valkyrie. I knew she was the special angel that watches over the women of my family, and I perceived her name to be Hellena. James saw this same being as his late father, a career Naval officer, in a white dress uniform. Rashad perceived the being to be the Enlightened One, or Buddha.
The being spoke first to Rashad and welcomed him. He said that Rashad's time on earth was done. He was worthy now of Nirvana. Rashad asked why James and I were there and was told that we were part of the reason why he was worthy of Nirvana. His two great friends loved him so much that they had willingly accompanied him on his last journey. At the same time, however, James received a different message. He had been worried about what his father would think about his anti-war protest activities, and his father told him he was proud of him for standing up for what he believed. He knew he was not a coward because a coward would not have made this journey with Rashad. I received yet another message in which Hellena told me she was glad I had remembered the example of strength, honesty, wisdom, and loyalty taught to me by my family.
We spent what seemed like an eternity in this place as we talked to our separate, yet joined, entities. They said they appeared to us in this way because back in the real world we were physically joined when the lightning struck us. They said it also symbolized the joining of all religions and doctrines. They said I would live to see a new age of tolerance, that the souls and hearts of humanity would be joined as the three of us were.
The guides taught us that doctrine and creed and race meant nothing. No matter what we believed we were all children joined under one God, and that the only rule was God's true law - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We should treat all people as if they were a part of our soul because they were. All living things in the universe were connected to one another. They said that soon humanity would mature enough to assume a higher place in the universal scheme of things, but until then we must learn acceptance and tolerance and love for each other. They said there would come a new age when people would not be able to endure seeing others homeless and hungry. We would realize that only by helping each other could we truly help ourselves... (it continues)
Quote from: AbrahamQuote from: Ben KQuote from: AbrahamLol. 1+1=2 even if i 'feel' it equals 3.
No matter how much you want to believe ur own personal inclinations, the truth is the truth regardless.
then what is the truth oh scholar of the ages?
if this topic had been disproven or proven we would not be discussing it in this little corner of the internet we have. why even bother asking this question when you know it cant be answered.
Im sure if you experienced what some of these people here have your opinion would be changed. But since the system is based on belief and you obviously dont BELIEVE any of it can happen your stuck with reading other peoples experiences. have fun.
Wow. Its funny how Ill say something rational and everyone will get all spunky about their own confusion and misguidance.
:shock:
Wow. What a blatent rationalization.
Hello Abraham,
I was like you too. When I started meditation when I was about 20 or so, i never even read about astral projections or lucid dreaming, because I didn't believe anything other than God.
I still believe in God & do regular meditation, but also try my best on Astral Projections & Lucid Dreaming. I have had a couple of Lucid Dreams, and that's when I started believing that Lucid Dreams are for real!
I still didn't have any OBE, but i know i am so close from the vibrations. I was stunned when I experienced the vibrations for the 1st time. Now I believe and trying my best to exit.
(One of my friends who belongs to your religion is already projecting!!, he prays 5 times a day as instructed in your religion. And he is a strong Muslim guy!)
OK guys... I think you all have tried your best to convince this guy... if he is so stubborn, why waste your precious time typing... use those valuable keystrokes to help guys like me to exit successfully... :grin:
- Guhan
Thx for the NDE-report qbeac! Very interesting!
Quote from: TomboThx for the NDE-report qbeac! Very interesting!
You are welcome, Tom. These are some other group NDE examples:
12. Paul's NDE. Two vietnam soldiers hit by gun fire at the same time.http://www.nderf.org/paul's.htm
Brief excerpt:
"I turned around and went back towards where he lay moaning, screaming for a medic the entire time. I had crossed the fifty feet between us in what seemed like seconds when I was shot down by machine gun fire. Pain ripped through my legs and I fell forward.
The next thing I knew I was viewing the scene from about sixteen feet above my body. I saw that my body had been hit several times in the right leg and once in the left. I was convinced that I was going to bleed to death and felt tremendous sorrow that I'd never see my wife and our unborn baby. My sadness was joined by a growing confusion and curiosity. So, this is death? I thought. No pain! No fear! How weird, I don't feel any different. I still can think.
I stared at my body and wondered what was coming next. My buddy, Pete was lying next to my body.
I was shocked to see a mist leave from his head, which instantly turned into an exact duplicate of his body. I noticed that his spirit or new body was whole and glowed a bit. (His physical body below was missing his hand and part of his forearm due to being hit by the same sniper.) Pete looked dazed and I called to him. He immediately flew to join me and we discussed what was going to happen from that point. We noticed that a young black medic had discovered our bodies. First he checked Pete and then me. He began working on my body and Pete commented that he guessed that meant he was dead, but that I probably still had a chance. He reached out and shook my hand and said, "I want to thank you for being a good friend and for trying to save my life. I don't know why, but I just get this sense that I am not staying here. I am going someplace I've been before. It feels like home.
I know this sounds crazy, but I think it's not your time to go yet. I think I'll try to say goodbye to my mom now, but you go on and have a groovy life and if your kid is a boy name him after me. OK?" I said, "You got it Pete!" I reached over to give him a pat on the back, but he vanished in a blink of light. I watched several soldiers below help carry me away from the scene while the medic continued to work on me."
Jake's NDE: a group of fire fighters trapped in the same fire.
May, James, and Rashad: three friends hit by lightning at the same time.http://www.near-death.com/group.html
Tom and everybody, I am going to open a new thread to talk about the
possibility of moving physical objects from the astral plane. It is based on the account of an experienced projector,
Jerry Groos, who says he can do it. This is the link:
Can you move a physical object from the astral plane?http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=181019#181019
Un saludo, qbeac.
Hi everybody, some people have asked us several questions about how to perform the experiment with the Agnostic Method. For instance: how and where they should place the words written on the paper, etc. So, these are some clarifications about how to do the experiment:
The instructions in English of how to do the Agnostic Method experiment are in the following link:
- Post #4, pag. 1. INSTRUCTIONS OF THE AGNOSTIC METHOD
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907
Also here: - Whats Your Proof?
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21011
But those are only partial instructions, since we have not been able to translate everything to English yet. The whole thing in Spanish is in this link:
- Post #301 y #302. pag. 31. Instrucciones del Método Agnostic de verificación astral.
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?p=38484#post38484
So, let me add a few things about the experiment:
Our idea is that the experiment could be performed in three different levels:
Level 1: Personal level. A single person could try the Agnostic Method all by itself at home. You would only need the help of a friend of yours (or family member) to choose the words from the dictionary and write them on a piece of paper. Your friend would give you the papers inside a folder or something, so that you cannot see the words. You could place the paper in any appropriate place inside your room or near by and without looking at the words during the process. Of course you would have to place the paper somewhere totally outside of your physical visual reach (Ex: on top of a tall piece of furniture, or on top of a book shelve, in a near by room, or something like that).
Level 2: For small groups of people. Ex: The projector could do the experiment with the help of a few friends. The friend would choose the words and place the words in his/her own house. And the projector will have to "travel" to the house of his/her friend to try to read the words written in the paper. The next morning you talk to each other to verify if the words coincide or not. The person who controls the projector we call it "the controller", and it could be a friend of yours, or anybody else who would be willing to do the job.
For instance, we (a small group of scientists from the Spanish forum 100cia.com) are now controlling an experienced projector who is trying to read the words. This projector is trying to go from his house to the house of one of us. In case he gets positive results, we may change the controller a couple of times just to make sure there were not any errors in the process (mistakes, fraud, jokes, etc.).
Level 3: Experiments performed in a controlled environment, in a laboratory, and following all the guarantees of the Scientific Method. This is the final step and the hardest one to pass for any projector. Although for any real projector, it would be as easy to succeed with Level 1, 2 or 3 experiments. We would be willing to test in the lab any projectors who can pass the preliminary stages (Levels 1 and 2).
Therefore, our intention is to go from very low and loose security measures (Level 1), to give every projector the opportunity to practice in a very relaxed and comfortable manner (at home, with his/her own friends, etc.), to the opposite end: very high and tight security measures in a laboratory (Level 3), and to go from one extreme to the other in a very gradual way.
We are willing to adjust every single experiment to the circumstances and particularities of any projector, since we are very much aware that this is an experiment with "human beings", and each person may need a different environment to feel comfortable. Also, we believe natural phenomenon does not need to adapt to Science, on the contrary, it is Science the one that should try to adapt to natural phenomenon.
Well, that's a brief summary of all the things we have been saying in the Spanish forum. If you have any questions, please, feel free to ask.
Un saludo, qbeac.