Method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences

[Tombo]

Hi everybody, PLEASE, HELP ME IN THE FOLLOWING ENGLISH SCIENCE FORUM!:

- SCIFORUM. Thread: Scientific method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=890456#post890456

Somebody has asked to move the post from the scientific section to the pseudo-scientific one, and, in my opinion, "it seems" that person simply has not taken the time to analyze this subject properly from a scientific point of view.


Thanks. qbeac.

ok I go over there

[Kazbadan]

I will give a help too, but just pone point: i gave you (qbeac) that link because you ask, but i must admit that in that forum there are 2 kinds of people (maybe i am wrong): people like us that have reasons to believe in OBEs and have an open mind, and pseudo-scientists. So, it will be hard to change their mind, but lets not give up now

[Tombo]

qbeac:

It is nice to see how much effort you put into this certainly very interestin subject. Now I wonder do you have a couple a Astralprojectors that will do the experiment for and then you will analyze the results or is that it. Is your job now finished? I mean, what are your futher plans regarding this method?

[qbeac]

I will give a help too, but just pone point: i gave you (qbeac) that link because you ask, but i must admit that in that forum there are 2 kinds of people (maybe i am wrong): people like us that have reasons to believe in OBEs and have an open mind, and pseudo-scientists. So, it will be hard to change their mind, but lets not give up now

No problem, life is life!

[qbeac]

Hi everybody,

First of all, I would like to thank all of you, believers and non believers, for your comments, your help and your support: Draege, Kazbadan, Tvos, Tombo, magicmac2000... and anybody else who would like to be included in the list.

Secondly, yes, Tombo, we are already doing the experiments. We have contacted several persons who have a fair amount of control doing astral projection, and we are working on it since last summer (ago-05 +/-). We are still adjusting the procedures and protocols, but have already obtained partial and promising results.... but I have no time right now to get into the details, so we'll talk about it later.

We do encourage all of you to do the same, because it is so simple!

Agnostic Method has two very important advantages:

1) It is extremely simple. Anybody can do it in its own home without having to use complicated technology. You can do it "yourself", and you can do it "for yourself", to verify the real nature of your experiences (that's called "Level 1" verifications). You can also do it for other people: your friends, relatives, etc., so that they can realize of the real nature of your experiences (that's called "Level 2" verifications). You can also do it in a scientific lab (that's called "Level 3" verifications).

2) It is extremely reliable. Scientists know that mathematical calculations don't lie! The probabilistic calculations done by Hetzer, a professional mathematician, in the Math sub-forum of 100cia.com are a very powerful argument to show the scientific community (I mean Table 1). So, all of you people should know that.

I would also like to hear your comments about the hints to read the correct words. I mean placing the numbers (or drawings?) before the words and writing the words in different papers or materials of different colours. Focusing correctly the physical plane from the astral plane is VERY important in order to avoid false positives.

So, if you try to do that, I would like to hear how it went. Thanks.

Take care. qbeac.

[qbeac]

Qbeac,

Thank You on the reading of my experiments with the validation of playing cards....()... I think by doing this it will at least lay a good fondation of framework for others and better help man/woman kind.

Tvos[/img]

Tvos, thanks for your comments and explanations. We are in the same boat. qbeac.

P.S. I have underlined your sentence because I endorse it as well.

[mactombs]

I would also like to mention, if it has not been already, that when you are conducting the card experiment, it helps to just glance at the cards. If you keep looking at them, your expectations can easily morph the cards (you probably have experienced this phenomenon if you've ever projected, for instance the time on a clock constantly changing, or things in your environment changing to reflect what is on your mind/mood).

Numbers and letters are generally more difficult than symbols or images to report correctly. If things keep morphing, look steadily at them and challenge mentally their reality. Usually they'll go back to normal.

Another link on the science topic is: http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htm

Magicmac hits the nail on the head about pseudo-skeptics being dogmatic and their obstinacy to conflicting world views (I know, I used to be one). The professional skeptics aren't even worth arguing with.

[Kazbadan]

So, you are conducting experiments, thats great qbeac

I would like to participate, but as i said, i am not a projector, i dont know how to obe yet. Sometimes (rare) i may have a spontaneous obe and even so i get afraid of it (stupid!) and i come back fast to my body.

I will not ask the details, but how much good are the results. You said that they are promising, but sometimes we want so much something that we will see it (even if is not true). So, from lucid and mathematical point of view, how good are the results? Above the "wild guess"? I mean, are they superioe to th eprobability of guessing the card/number/whatever?

thanks

[magicmac2000]

Amigos, check out this post...
If that is true ... we have a validation...

[qbeac]

Amigos, check out this post...
If that is true ... we have a validation...

Hi magicmac, I've read it, thanks very much. That's a very good first attempt.

[qbeac]

So, you are conducting experiments...(...)

Hi Kazbadan, well, so far we are in the first stages of the experiment. We started last summer (jul-05 +/-) and, to begin with, we engaged ourselves into a very long debate to organize everything: how to do it, the protocols, procedures, control measures, etc. It may seem easy now, but it's been a looooong way till we've had "Table 1" and the "Instructions of the Agnostic Method" set in place. Take a look at the Math sub-forum in 100cia.com and you will realize the difficulties:

- Foro de matemáticas. Cálculo de probabilidades de acertar por casualidad un número:
http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=5303

And there have also been several other types of contingencies and delays, due to both technical and human factors. For instance, if somebody's normal frequency to have an OBE is, let's say, once every 20 days (more or less), if that person gets nervous trying to do the experiment, the frequency may diminish. So, it is better that the OBEer is relaxed, without anxiety, etc.

Results so far? We have not even started to write down the results in a systematic way yet. The results we have so far are due to spontaneous "testing" OBEs of the projector. Only one example: the projector tried to see a combination of digits and letters, such as 45W7P, and he almost got it right, but not quite. Then we started thinking of ways to improve the results, and that's how we came up with the "HINTS TO READ THE WORDS."

Any how, now we are almost ready to start doing the first official serious round of attempts. But, we are still going to stay in a trial mode. That means that we may try different things, see how they work and continue in the same direction or change it if necessary.

We encourage all of you to try this experiment, because by sharing our common knowledge together, we may all help to improve the method.

Chao. qbeac.

[qbeac]

I would also like to mention, if it has not been already, that when you are conducting the card experiment, it helps to just glance at the cards....(...)

Hi mactombs, thanks for the info, very interesting and usefull to know!

[qbeac]

qbeac: I see you are really really trying to find out whether these experiences are going on effectively out of the body or if they are mere Lucid Dreams It's very cool that people like you are seeking the truth behind all these. Now, I think it's a waste of your time to discuss the subject with pseudo-skeptic people. I mean, they are closed minded like orthodox religious or fundamentalists...(...)...

Hi magicmac, in my opinion, it is very important for the scientific community to open its eyes to these types of experiences. If "official science" studies these experiences in depth and if they validate them, that will also open the door for the world wide recognition of them. That's one of the keys. That's why it is important to inform the scientific community about it too.

That's why we have been debating this subject in the Spanish Science forum (100cia.com) for around 9 months by now! If you take a look at that debate, it was not easy. There was a lot of skepticism and opposition towards it.

- Original debate in Spanish Science forum. See Posts #301 & #302, pag. 31:
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=4290&page=31&pp=10

At the beginning, several people argued that this debate should be canceled or moved to other pseudo-scientific or parapsychologycal forums. But as the debate progressed and more and more people (and scientists) had the chance to take a closer look at the data (Ex: the huge amount of evidence, the scientific articles from Dr. van Lommel, Dr. Greyson, MEDLINE articles, NDERF, near-death.com, etc.), the perspective started to shift and the debate has finally consolidated itself as a really scientific debate.

Now you don't hear any more those types of opinions (Ex: to cancel or move this debate to other "less serious" sections), at least in the Spanish 100cia.com forum. But this achievement has taken a great deal of dialog and information exchange. So, the present situation was in part also due to a lack of serious information about this subject.

Nowadays (oct-05, 9 months later), the main thread of this long debate (Title: "1 Millón dólares...") has bitten all times records in the Medicine sub-forum as well as in the whole Science forum in general, since it has reached the 306 posts and 20,800 visits limit, and it is growing strong.

This debate has also caught the attention of several Spanish journalists, and has recently been mentioned in a very well known nation wide Spanish radio program ("La Rosa de los Vientos"). They argue that it must be "serious business" because it is been carried out in a respected Science forum.

Therefore, I encourage you to talk to scientists too, even if they at first are skeptic. Not all of them will be permanently closed to solid evidence. Show them the scientific evidence, because there is plenty of it so far. And above all, show them your personal results with the Agnostic Method.

Take care. qbeac.

P.S. This is an example of a debate about this subject in an English science forum:

Scientific method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49410

[qbeac]

Hi everybody, regarding Table 1 of the Agnostic Method (see pag. 1 of this thread for more details), the following is a review of the mathematical calculations in the Table made in a specialized Spanish Science Forum (foro MIGUI) by a professional mathematician. His nick is Leach, so let's thank him for his effort:

IMPORTANT: Review of the mathematical calculations in Table 1 of the Agnostic Method.
Content of Table 1: probability of guessing by chance different types of random numbers:
http://foro.migui.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1119


This is quite simple:

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)

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 that mathematical calculations do not lie!

So, I insist, let's apply the Agnostic Method and let's show other people whether these experiences are real or imaginary.

Un saludo. qbeac.

[skropenfield]

Now the big question is this one:

Are these experiences real or imaginary?

Well, let's apply the "Agnostic Method" and find out.

May be you will not be able to pass over certain research program: 1) Guaranteed OBE induction in any experimental subject at will, certain technocratic approaches will allow this (naturally, not some kind of baby toys!!!), 2) A scenario for accurateness of "astral senses", control of "astral displacements", 3) Instrumental registration of "projecting entity", instrumental communication with "projecting entity". Make a point between experiments that merely fiddle with phenomena and experiments attempting to discover PROCESS that might be involved!!!
See 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- an excellent example what kind of research program at all is possible!!! See also Karlis Osis. Naturally, it must be understood, not any experimental result can be academically recognized, academical recognition of certain experimental results is impossible a priori. For example Durvilles work at that time resulted in purely hysterical reaction from Science, i mean really hysterical reaction- excellent achievement of Durville.
:scared3:  :scared3:  :scared3:

[qbeac]

May be you will not be able to pass over certain research program: ...(...)...

Hi skropenfield, the arguments you have posed are some of the most interesting ones I have heard so far, but in my opinion they are not an insurmountable obstacle to do these experiments. The reason why, in short, is this one:

A bolt does not have to adapt to the wrench, but the wrench to the bolt!

In other words, the phenomenon does not have to adapt to Science. On the contrary, it is Science the one that should try to adapt to the phenomenon.

Let me give you a few examples of different natural phenomenon that are very difficult or even impossible to be artificially provoked in a laboratory, nor reproduced at will. On the contrary, many of them just happen in a spontaneous way in nature, but still, Science has adapted to them and can perfectly study them by waiting for them to happen and having the right tools set in place at the right place and at the right time. For instance:

In planet Earth: Volcano eruptions, tornados, hurricanes, etc. In astronomy: Super nova explosion, gamma ray bursts, comets, etc. In regular people: Certain types of rare diseases, nightmares in regular people, heart attacks, etc. Nevertheless, all those phenomena, and many more, can be scientifically studied. And so can OBEs as well.

Science should be an adaptable tool and not a fixed one. If you find a bolt which is difficult to unbolt with a regular wrench, you should try to get a better wrench, or a wrench of a higher quality. And there are SO MANY different tools in the market nowadays! I am talking about all sorts of different scientific modern resources, such as sophisticated technology, computers, etc.

Now then, Science should try to adapt "if it can." And I believe in this case, it can indeed! Well, it can if she wants! (how would you say, "she wants" or "it wants"?). I mean that modern Science has plenty of very high quality "wrenches" to study OBE, if she wants to do it. But this last sentence is a completely different matter, because somebody may ask:

Does Science really want to get to the truth of this matter?

Answer: at least a few numbers of pioneer scientists are already trying to do it, so other ones could do it as well. One example: Dr. Bruce Greyson, a psychiatric from the University of Virginia, is conducting the following experiment in the Hospital of that university:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/

[Dr. Greyson says]: "Actually, we will begin such a study here at the University of Virginia Hospital in July (03). We will mount a computer screen facing up on top of a tall piece of furniture 2.3 meters high, and program the computer to display an easily recognized moving picture (such as a frog jumping). The picture will be chosen by a random program and changed frequently. The computer will keep a record of what pictures are displayed, but no one will have access to that record until the study is completed.

"The room we have chosen for this study is the cardiac electrophysiology clinic, where patients undergo surgery to implant defibrillators/cardioverters in their chests. During the course of this surgery, the patient's heart must be stopped so that the device can be tested and calibrated. That gives us good documentation of exactly when the patient's heart stopped, and for how long.

In summary, something similar to what Dr. Greyson is doing could also be done with OBEs, starting perhaps with the Agnostic Method, which can be easily applied at home, and following with more sophisticated experiments in the lab.

Un saludo. qbeac.

[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.

[Sova114]

I'm really surprised at a lot of people trying to define things as "real or imaginary." Reality is subjective... if someone is hallucinating that he/she is in the 15th century, that is their reality, they ARE living in the 15th century. If someone feels like they left their body, and experienced a whole chain of events.. then they did.

Trivialized further: a 14 year old male gets rejected by a cute girl he likes.. his whole world falls apart.. he feels sick to his stomach, incapable of being social, and depressed. Is this rational? No, but does that mean it's not real? It is HIS reality.

Basically.. there are infinite realities.

[dirty_blonde]

full details here

This experiment consisted of a deck of playing cards and some masking tape.  What i did was shuffle the cards vigorously, cut the deck a few times, and then pull a random card out.  With the card face down and without me looking at what it was, i taped the card to the window of my bed room (facing out).  I was to project, look at the card, then will myself back to my body to see if i Really saw the card in my projection.  After 12 trials, the overall probabilities suggested that my outcomes had less than a 1% chance that they were coincidence, and over a 99% chance that something else effect my results. Other than that, i tried to design a make-shift point system to account for the instability of the astral realm...but take that all with a pinch of salt.



OK, the first figure will be what card i saw in the projection, the second will be the actual card.
T1. 2 clubs, 7 spades (0 pts)
T2. Queen clubs, Queen spades (2 pts: odds=1/26)
T3. Jack (red suit), Jack clubs (1 pt: odds=1/13)
T4. 3 hearts, 2 clubs (1 pt)
T5. Ace hearts, 3 hearts (2 pts: odds=1/4)
T6. (1)Ace clubs, Queen spades (2 pts: odds=1/2)
T7. 7 hearts, 3 spades (0 pts)
T8. Queen hearts, Jack diamonds (8 pts: odds=1/2)
T9. King (red suit), King diamonds (3 pts: odds=1/26)
T10. 9 hearts, 6 Hearts (3 pts: odds=1/2)

T11. Ace hearts, Ace clubs (1 pt: odds=1/13)
T12. King clubs, Jack clubs (4 pts: odds=1/4)

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



Point System
1.) Same Color Suit
-Clubs and Spades (2pt)
-Hearts and diamonds (2pt)

2.) Face Cards
-Suited Queens and Jacks: Diamonds only (5 pts)
 -Queens and Jacks: Any other combo (2 pts)
-Suited Kings and Queens: Hearts, Clubs, and Spades (5 pts)
 -Kings and Queens: Any other suit (2pts)
Kings and Jacks: Spades, Hearts, Diamonds (3 pts)
 -Kings and Jacks: Clubs (2 pts)

3.)6's and 9's (1pt)
        Aces and 4's (1 pt)

4.)Cards Within One increment away
- Face cards (2 pts)
-8's and 9's (2 pts)
-All other combos (1 pt)



*the higher the point value, the higher the extent that Astral-fluidity could have effected the results. Apply all results to the point system and add all point that apply, together. Any other factors i have left out are because i already know the probabilities behind them (exact suit, exact increment, etc)  



1 pt total = Low extent/chance that astral instability affected the results
5 pts total = Decent extent/chance that astral instability affected the results
10 pts total= Very high extent/chance that astral instability affected the results