Scientific method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences

View Full Version : Scientific method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences

Post Reply

Create New Thread

qbeac

10-18-05, 05:42 PM

Hello everybody:

Has anybody ever wondered whether Astral Travelling (or OBE, Out of Body Experiences) are real or imaginary experiences? Do you think there is any scientific way to find out the difference for sure?

In a Spanish Science forum (www.100cia.com) we have asked ourselves those same questions and we do believe there is a way to find out the difference for sure. This forum is specialized in Science and it has sub-forums for almost every Science field there is: Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Biology, Medicine, Genetics, Engineering, Astronomy, Computer programming, etc., etc.

After around 10 months debating this subject in depth (starting January-05), we have designed a very simple, but at the same time a very reliable and accurate scientific method to verify if these experiences are real or imaginary (a product of your imagination, dreams, hallucinations, etc.).

Using this method, anybody who may have an OBE (Out of Body Experience) could very easily verify, in its own home and without having to use complicated technology, if his/her experiences are real or not. And that person could also give his relatives and friends very convincing scientific prove of the real nature of these experiences.

We have named this method “Agnostic Method” (AM) to verify astral travelling. This is the link in Spanish:

- Post #301 al #305, pag. 31. Detailed instructions of Agnostic Method:
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=4290&page=31&pp=10

Since the information in the Spanish Science forum 100cia.com is in Spanish, we have translated to English a small portion to the Spanish debate (some of the key instructions of this method) and have posted it in this other forum about astral travelling:

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

We are very much interested in knowing the opinion of scientists about the validity of this method (the Agnostic Method) from a purely scientific point of view (Ex: criticisms, possible conceptual errors that you may find in it, possible improvements, etc.). We will appreciate very much your comments!

Best regards. qbeac.

gukarma

10-18-05, 06:36 PM

From what I understand, you are not testing whether or not those (OBE) take place, but whether or not a subject has enough clarity to read words while in said state.

For instance, OBE may be like dreams, where things don't make much sense and/or aren't very clear. In that case, a subject might not be able to tell you what the words are in the physical world, even though he did experience a real.

A little pointless, if you don't mind me saying.

qbeac

10-18-05, 06:49 PM

Hi qukarma, no, I don’t mind you saying that, but the experiment we have designed would need a longer and more complete explanation than the one I gave in my first post. But if you take a look at the links I provided in that post you’ll be able to see that we have been discussing this subject in the Spanish Science forum for around 10 months by now, so many things have been said and it would be very difficult to summarize them in a few words.

I’ll tell you what, I could post here some of the text that we have already translated to English. That would only be a very small portion of what has been said through out the debate, but it could be a good starting point.

We are mainly interested in hearing the opinions of scientists about the scientific validity of the method we have developed to verify if those types of experiences are real or imaginary.

Chao. qbeac.

qbeac

10-18-05, 06:51 PM

By the way, does anybody know where the log out button is in this forum? … I don’t see it, but it may be around here some where. Thanks.

Dinosaur

10-18-05, 11:23 PM

This thread belongs in either the Pseudo Science Forum or the Parapsychology Forum. It like a few others does not belong in any of the Science Forums.

qbeac

10-18-05, 11:59 PM

Hi Dinosaur, we would like to analyze this subject from a strictly scientific point of view. That’s why in the Spanish Science forum (100cia.com) we have been debating about this subject in the “Medicine sub-forum”, in the “Physics sub-forum”, and in the “Math sub-forum”, because the subject we are analyzing has a mixture of properties which belong at the same time to different fields of science. This subject has to do with the following matters: Human consciousness, how the brain works, how the nervous system works (how it transmits its signals, etc.), and specially how the human eye works.

In this regard, and in order to understand what is happening with these type of experiences, we would like to make a rigorous comparison between the “human eye” and other “artificial optical devices” (Ex: digital cameras), to try to understand which are their similarities as well as their differences (Ex: what physical elements are they composed of, lenses, diaphragm, sensors, etc., and how they work).

In the Spanish Science forum there are dozens of purely scientific links to different types of scientific information about this subject, including a great deal of articles extracted directly from MEDLINE (Pubmed), which is a very well known medicine database (many of you probably know about it). Just a few examples: Dr. Pim van Lommel (cardiologist) NDE study published in The Lancet in 2001. Dr. Bruce Greyson (psychiatric) research work in the hospital of the University of Virginia. Roger Penrose (physicist) and Dr. Stuart Hameroff (doctor) research work about human consciousness, etc.

In that Spanish Science forum we have open several threads in the Medicine sub-forum, in the Physics sub-forum and in the Math sub-forum, where you may take a look at all those articles and links I am talking about. These are the main threads (sorry for posting the title of these links in Spanish, but so far we have only translated a small portion of it to English):

(Note: In case anybody needs it, this is a good free translating web site: http://www.freetranslation.com/)

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

- ¿Localizada la conciencia humana?
http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=4736

- ¿Separación mente cerebro? Experiencias Cercanas a la Muerte (ECM)
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=4174

- 1 Millón dólares por probar fenómeno paranormal científicamente
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=4290

- Hilo de coordinación entre “controladores” y “viajantes” astrales
http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=5147

- Métodos para demostrar científicamente un fenómeno paranormal.
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=4867

- ¿Puede un dispositivo óptico “ver” si le tapas la lente?
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=5740

Chao. qbeac.

Dinosaur

10-19-05, 12:10 AM

qbeac

10-19-05, 12:33 AM

Hi Dinosaur, your opinion is very respectful, but many scientists around the world have a different opinion than yours, and judging by your statements, "it seems" (I don’t know if this is correct, you correct me if I am wrong, please) that you have not analyzed this subject in depth from a purely scientific point of view. However, in the Spanish Science forum we have done that, and the links I indicated in my previous post prove it so. Anybody who would like to take a look at that information can easily corroborate it. There are a great number of purely scientific articles which talk about this subject, many of them really recent articles, even from last year (2004), and in the links above anybody who would like to take a look at them can do so. These are just a few of examples:

- Dr. Lommel: http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htm
- Dr. Lommel: http://www.thelancet.com/search/search.isa
- (complete text of Dr. van Lommel The Lancet study) http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9423966&query_hl=1
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11703546
- http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=493684
- http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/tme/toc.00007815-200401000-00000.htm;jsessionid=DM0QnlEFrisVvt80PK1YWgVJVVAXm 4SGcWhrNv9ZZinePhpYKGBH!-365670234!-949856145!9001!-1
- "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness”. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

… and there are so many other ones. Really, it would take a long time to list all of them, but they are included in the main threads I posted above, and anybody who would like to see it, can do it.

Chao. qbeac.

qbeac

10-19-05, 12:40 AM

This is the main table where you can see the different variants of the Agnostic Method and their relative reliability level, which are based on the mathematical calculations of guessing different types of random numbers by chance. These calculations have been performed by two professional mathematicians (hetzer & leach) in two Spanish mathematics forums (100cia.com & MIGUI). See links bellow.

TABLE 1 FOR THE “AGNOSTIC METHOD”

(Note: this table is not a final version. If you find any mistakes or bugs, please, let us know)

Post #301. Table 1 with the different versions of Agnostic Method (original post in Spanish):
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?p=38484#post38484

Summary of TABLE 1. Probability of guessing by chance a random number.
(See the original table in Spanish bellow)

1.- Variant of the "3 ordered words chosen in a random way from a dictionary". The reliability has been calculated with 10,000 words (see note *1).
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 1.e-12, and that’s the same as 0.000000000001
(11 zeros after the decimal point).

2.- Variant of the "2 ordered words chosen in a random way from a dictionary". The reliability has been calculated with 10,000 words (see note *1).
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 1.e-8, and that’s the same as 0.00000001
(7 zeros after the decimal point).

3.- Variant of "code with a mixture of 5 numbers and capital letters". Example: JF7AS.
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 1.442e-8, and that’s the same as 0.00000001442
(7 zeros after the decimal point).

4.- Variant of "code with a mixture of 4 numbers and capital letters". Example: G4K2.
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 5.336e-7, and that’s the same as 0.0000005336
(6 zeros after the decimal point).

5. - Variant of "cipher of the 5 random numbers” (from 0 to 9).
This is like in "Cupon de la ONCE" (Spanish lottery game, good reference point!). Example: 78153
Website for the "Cupon de la ONCE" game: http://www.once.es/home.cfm?opcion=1&orden=1&ultimos=ok
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 1.e-5, and that’s the same as 0.00001
(4 zeros after the decimal point).

6.- Variant of "cipher of the 4 random numbers" (from 0 to 9). Example: 4179
Probability of guessing on time: 1.e-4, and that’s the same as 0.0001
(3 zeros after the decimal point).

7.- Variant of "two ordered cards taken at random from a Spanish deck" (40 cards: Aces, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 plus king, queen and duke- 3 types of figure cards- Spanish deck basically are equal to others).
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 6.4e-4, and that’s the same as 0.00064
(3 zeros after the decimal point).

8.- Variant of "the book taken at random from a home book-shelf" (with 140 books).
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 7.14e-3, and that’s the same as 0.00714
(2 zeros after the decimal point).

(1*) Clarification about the calculation of the words taken at random from a dictionary: We counted the common words of 12 distinct pages taken at random from the dictionary. Type of dictionary: Salvat editions, just one volume, 1,382 pages. We found that about 39% of the words are rare or very rare. That means that about 61% of the words are easily understood. To this number we applied a reduction factor of 50% (just for safety reasons, to be sure) and that dropt the % to 30%. So, from 59,000 words in a dictionary only 30% are common or easily understood, and that give us 17,700 words. If you think that 30% is too high, let’s suppose that only 20% of the words are common, so we would get 11,800 words (and that’s already too little). Finally, round that number down even more and you get about 10,000 common words (approx. = 17% of 59,000).

Just one clarification about the probability of guessing when you repeat the experiment many times:

[Hetzer, a professional mathematician from 100cia.com, says]: 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.

Let’s see only the example of the dictionary (when you take 2 random words [case number 2) in the above Table]), and the rest of the variants would be calculated in a similar way:

Probability of guessing by chance twice: (1.e-8)^2 = 1.e-16, and that’s the same as 0,0000000000000001
(15 zeros after the decimal point).

P.S. For more information on these calculations (formulas, procedures, etc.), see these links:

- Spanish mathematics forum: 100cia.com. Hetzer is the professional mathematician who performed most of the above calculations:
http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=5303

- Spanish mathematics forum: MIGUI. Leach is the professional mathematician who revised the calculations in Table 1:
http://foro.migui.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=6bde630e800c56308bfb9a0d79c4b379

In case anybody needs a translator, this is a good free translating web site: http://www.freetranslation.com/

qbeac

10-19-05, 12:54 AM

Hi everybody, this is another example of the few things from that debate that we have been able to translate to English so far. We believe the following method could provide strong evidence (if not proof) of the real nature of these experiences, whether they are real or imaginary, in either case. And what we would like to be able to do is to clearly distinguish the difference once and for all. We believe that through this method, it can be done.

Please, we would like to ask you, scientists, to criticize this procedure from a scientific point of view, not with adjectives, but with scientific arguments. Thanks.

This is the method:

INSTRUCTIONS OF THE AGNOSTIC METHOD
(See the original instructions in Spanish bellow)

(Note: these instructions are not a final version. If you find any mistakes or bugs, please, let us know)

Post #302. Detailed instructions of Agnostic Method: (Original Post in the Spanish Science Forum):
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?p=38484#post38484

"The "Agnostic Method" is a very reliable and trust worthy method that allows any one to proof to himself, and in a scientific way, whether his experiences (Ex: OBE, astral projection) are real or imaginary (Note: such personal verification is called a "Level 1" verification). This method is also a good way to show, or even to demonstrate, the real nature of your experiences to your friends & relatives, and thus to eliminate any doubts that they may have about it (verifications for small groups of people are called “Level 2” verifications).

There are many variations in the way you may apply the "Agnostic Method", like for example: variant of the words taken at random from a dictionary, variant of the card in a deck, variant of the codes with numbers and letters, etc. Every person is free to choose the variant he wants, but he must take into account that each one of them has a different level of trustiness (or reliability), that is, some are more reliable than others.

In Appendix 1 there is information about the method, about the definition of Levels 1, 2 and 3 and there is an explanation of the trustiness of all the variants by taking into account the probabilities calculated by Hertz & Leach (two professional mathematicians) in the Math’s forum in 100cia.com and MIGUI (august and oct-05). In Appendix 2 there is also an explanation of how this method can be applied to lab experiments according to all the proper steps and guarantees of the “Scientific Method”, and such verifications are called "Level 3" verifications.

1- Instructions for the "variant of the words taken at random from a dictionary":

Note: The following method described in this paper to select a word taken at random from a dictionary is a manual method, but it has the advantage of allowing anybody to do it very easily and without having to use any kind of technology at all. But in case somebody wanted to use a more precise way to select a random number (word, card, etc.), we must point out there are other more sophisticated methods to do that, even of military precision.

1.1- Find a dictionary of your language of just one volume (any one with about 60,000 words).

1.2- Create a little "home made lottery barrel" [like the ones you see in lottery games] to choose at random the words from the dictionary. This how to do it: write in a paper numbers from 0 to 9 and cut them in equal pieces. Fold the papers and put them inside a small container (Ex: a glass, vase, or any similar container).

1.3- Take one number at random without looking. Look at it, write it down on another paper and then fold it back and put it back again in the container. Repeat the operation until you complete the cipher of the number of pages existing in the dictionary. for example, if your dictionary has 1,500 pages (that’s a 4 cipher number) you should pick up a number and put it back in the container four times [repeat four times that process of "picking a paper-seeing the number- putting it back"].

1.4- Search for the page that you were looking for [the page found in 1.3-, read above] but be careful not to open it up completely. Just look on the corners of the page and avoid reading any thing from that page in the process. When you find the page, open it up completely with your eyes closed.

1.5- With your eyes closed do the following: put the dictionary in the middle of the table (which should be empty) and with your hands, give an impulse to it to make it spin around several times over the table. Take away your hands from the dictionary while it is turning, to make sure that when you touch it again you don’t know its final position. Now, while pointing with a finger into the air (and still with your eyes closed), slowly bring your finger down until it touches any place of the dictionary.

1.6- Now, open your eyes and look which word your finger landed on. Write down the word if it’s a normal word (easy to understand). If it is a strange word or one difficult to understand, repeat again all the process starting in point 1.3.

1.7- When you have gotten 2 or 3 random words, write them in any normal paper (Ex: A4 format) in a way that will allow the projector to read it. If you are the projector, ask someone else to do it for you [the other person should be the one choosing at random the words, not you].

1.8- If it is a Level 1 or Level 2 experiment, there are many ways to set in place the paper with the words. The paper can be put in different places and in different ways. This will be described later in point 3 (to be included later).

The next point is VERY important: When you write down the words, there are several things that you may do to help the projector read them correctly.

2- Hints to help the projector reading the words correctly:

2.1- According to the accounts from people that have experienced OBEs, the astral plane and the physical plane are very similar, but sometimes they may present some differences. For that reason, and in order to help the reader (projector) to read the right words (and not false words), there are a few hints (aids, tips) that all of you could use, and they will help you to focus properly and to increase your capacity of viewing the numbers correctly (or cards, or words from a dictionary, etc.).

2.2.- Those hints have been designed to avoid “false positives”, which will diminish the total reliability of the results, and specially from the standpoint of the scientific community.

Example of a “false positive”: While in the astral plane you read the cards and you clearly see “number 8”. Then you awake up and in the physical world the card is “number 2” and not “number 8”.

2.3.- Conclusion: you should take into consideration that if you repeat the experiment several times with positive results, that will increase ENORMOUSLY the credibility of this method (See Table 1 for more details on these probability calculations). On the contrary, it is very important to try to avoid “false positives”, because they will diminish very much the credibility of this method.

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.

3- Security measures to apply in Level 2 verifications (for small groups of people):

3.1- If the experiment is not intended for just one person (the self projector, Level 1) but for a small group of people (friends, family; Level 2) you should take some security measures to avoid errors, cheats, somebody kidding you, etc.

3.2- Such measures will be added later in the following link:

(insert link) [this is not my error, in the original message there is a missing link in the time i write this].

P.S. For more details on the Agnostic Method, the following is a list of links about it:

Post #301 and #302. Table 1 and instructions of the Agnostic Method:
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?p=38484#post38484
- Post #216. pag.22. El Método Agnostic de Verificación Astral (libro de estantería):
http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=4290&page=22&pp=10
- Post #221. pag. 23. Otra variante del Método Agnostic con palabras elegidas al azar en un libro o diccionario:
http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?p=35568#post35568
- Post #285. pag. 29. Mejora del MA con el bombo de lotería casero:
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?p=37626#post37626
- Post #286, pag. 29. Aplicación del Método Agnostic al Hemi Sync.
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?p=37703#post37703
- Foro de matemáticas. Cálculo de probabilidades de acertar por casualidad un número:
http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=5303
- Post #280. pag. 28. Probabilidades consideradas significativas según foro matemáticas de 100cia.com (cálculos hechos por Hetzer):
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=4290&page=28&pp=10

Tombo

10-19-05, 07:47 AM

qbeac

10-19-05, 08:04 AM

Hello everybody,
Hello Tombo, that is correct. Credibility is not a scientific argument. Scientific experimentation is a scientific argument. Let’s do the experiments. If any scientist finds conceptual errors on the design and procedure of these experiments, or if they think its design could be improved, please, let us know. Thanks. qbeac.

Tombo

10-19-05, 09:21 AM

Hello everybody,
Hello Tombo, that is correct. Credibility is not a scientific argument.

Yes indeed not. Should we make a poll everytime before we explore something to see if the majority believes it's worth it? If the scientists in the past had done that we would still live in the dark age.

kazbadan

10-19-05, 11:11 AM

Astral Projection and OBE do not have enough credibility to belong in a science forum. A scientific study of religion, for example, belongs in a religious forum.

Because some people think that Astral Projection and OBE have some credibility, forums have been established for this subject.

A moderator should move this thread.

I see your point, but a scientific study about OBEs its not the same as a scientific study of religion. Religion is a human science i think, and there is a thread just for it in fact.

Now, about OBEs is different: if you just want to speak about your astral travels, it will fit right into pseudo sicence forums, but if you are making a real study, maybe it should be in other forum. qbeac is trying to take this seriously and ask for the help of people to determine wther or not OBEs are real.

Probably they are just lucid dreaming, but can we deny so much evidences? Maybe we should take a look to it, maybe we shoud make the experiments and try to proof (or not) OBEs as a real phenomenon (i mean, not just mere l.dreams).

Dinosaur

10-19-05, 04:23 PM

Why do you folks want to post here instead of in the Parapsychology or Pseudo Science Forums? What makes you think the people at this forum are more interested in the subject than those who pay attention to the parapsychology forum which has threads on this subject?

Before doing any experiments you are implying that OBE & Astral Projection are science instead of parapsychology.

I think that posting here is an attempt to legitimize a pseudo scientific subject. Perhaps you should wait until you have some evidence before posting in a science forum.

The Math & Physics Forum is cluttered with nonsense by those who do not accept relativity. I would hate to see another forum cluttered with nonsense which belongs in some pseudo science forum.

qbeac

10-19-05, 05:30 PM

Hello Dinosaur, in my opinion, what is important right now is not the word that we use to name this phenomenon, nor the category we put it in, but the phenomenon in itself.

We still don’t know exactly what this phenomenon is all about. Therefore, we cannot know either which will be the best word to name it (or the category we put it in). Will this be a “paranormal phenomenon”, “hallucinatory phenomenon”, “quantum phenomenon”, “electromagnetic phenomenon”, “unknown natural phenomenon”, “X-Y phenomenon...???” We don’t know yet. But when we study it in depth from a scientific perspective, we will be able to see which will be the best word to define it.

But for the moment, what is important to know is not the word (or category) that we use to name it, but if the phenomenon exists or does not exist, and above all if is real or only imaginary.

The point right now is to verify if a person can see or cannot see something that is completely outside of his physical visual reach. Let’s put it this way: will the information from the outside world will end up being “inside” the consciousness (or the brain) of that person, or not? That’s the point!

Because that would be impossible to do according to present scientific theories, since it is supposed that people can “only” see the world that surrounds them through their physical eyes. But if someone were to be able “to see” WITHOUT his eyes (or with his eyes “rendered useless” some way), that would imply an important anomaly with respect to conventional physical theories, because “optic devices” (inclusive the human eye) cannot do that. It is impossible for an “optic device” to be able “to see” if, for example, we cover its lens (which is the transparent material through which the light enters to the inside of that device) with an opaque material.

A graphic example: if you take a photographic camera (spool or digital, it doesn’t matter) and cover its lens by pressing strongly with your hand over it, and then take the picture, the picture will come out black, unless your hand is transparent, and I do not believe that’s the case, ¿right? But if you did that and the picture DID turn out correctly, that would imply that something very strange is happening.

In the case of the human being, whose “optic devices” are “his eyes”, that is also what we want to verify with the Agnostic Method: if that strange phenomenon exists or not and if is real or imaginary, in other words, if there is someone who is really able “to see” with his eyes “covered” by an opaque material (to express it in a graphical form). And if that was the case and we could obtain scientific evidence (or even proof) of it with the Agnostic Method, it would be of a crucial importance from a scientific point of view, ¿do you understand what I mean?

Chao. qbeac.

Dinosaur

10-19-05, 07:42 PM

This phenomenon has been well defined by the people who believe it exists. They call it OBE, Remote Viewing, Astral Projection, and perhaps they have other names for it.

There are a lot of anecdotes by people who believe (or claim to believe) that it happened to them. As Sagan or perhaps Asimov once said’There is a lot of evidence supporting the belief that people have hallucinations, misinterpret what they see/hear, and/or tell lies. There is no evidence supporting the belief in . . . . The , , , , can be replaced by many concepts like OBE, telepathy, Bermuda Triangle phenomena, alien abductions, et cetera.

Until there is better evidence, it should be considered pseudo science and not a suitable subject for a science forum. For the time being, is should be considered hallucinatory, lies, or misinterpretation of some phenomena. Those are acceptable explanations until such time as supporting evidence is provided by the believers.

Why should it be considered a phenomenon suitable for discussion in a serious scientific forum? Psychology and other soft sciences have developed a bad enough reputation without being further sullied by nonsense not supported by any evidence..

Tombo

10-20-05, 06:39 AM

Dinosaur (that name certainly fits..)

What evidence do you want? OBE is a very well known phenomenon, it is fairly easy to induce. You yourself could most certainly do it, if you would be willing to invest lets say a couple of hundered hours or so. It really is no question if OBE's are happening, that is just a fact. You yourself said it is well defined. The question is: what is really happening? Are they special dreams created by the brain or are they real experiences were consciousness can perceive the physical world without the eyes.

Now thats exactly what qbeac is trying to find out. He needs to post here because he is: "very much interested in knowing the opinion of scientists about the validity of this method (the Agnostic Method) from a purely scientific point of view (Ex: criticisms, possible conceptual errors that you may find in it, possible improvements, etc.)."

as he said in the introduction.

So what do you mean by evidence? evidence to proof that OBE really happen to people is easy to give. So you can't mean that I guess. Or maybe you rather mean evidence that OBE are not mere hallucinations? Well obviously we can't give such evidence because if we could the whole thread would be pointless.

The question really is not if you believe this to be nonsense but if the experimental setup is suitable to explore this well known phenomenon. It is a methodical question and as such it belongs into a science forum. In order to say that it doesn't belong here you would need evidence to show that methodicial questions don't belong here. It is not even relevant if the subject of the experiment is a Butterfly, a Photon or an OBE-experience.

CharonZ

10-20-05, 07:00 AM

Actually OBEs are known to be inducible by lesions (e.g. stroke) in certain areas of the brain. This in turn means that a defect in the body perception (as induced by said lesions) is responsible for the OBEs. There are quite a few case studies with varying degrees of perception distortions. For instance one patient had the feeling that he was looking constantly at himself from the outside (like constantly watching a mirror) for instance.
For a more scientific review I can point you to rather new papers on this:

The out-of-body experience: disturbed self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction.

Neuroscientist. 2005 Feb;11(1):16-24.
Blanke O, Arzy S.

Folk psychology postulates a spatial unity of self and body, a "real me" that resides in one's body and is the subject of experience. The spatial unity of self and body has been challenged by various philosophical considerations but also by several phenomena, perhaps most notoriously the "out-of-body experience" (OBE) during which one's visuo-spatial perspective and one's self are experienced to have departed from their habitual position within one's body. Here the authors marshal evidence from neurology, cognitive neuroscience, and neuroimaging that suggests that OBEs are related to a failure to integrate multisensory information from one's own body at the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ). It is argued that this multisensory disintegration at the TPJ leads to the disruption of several phenomenological and cognitive aspects of self-processing, causing illusory reduplication, illusory self-location, illusory perspective, and illusory agency that are experienced as an OBE.

And here another one (a book this time):

The out-of body experience: precipitating factors and neural correlates

Progress in Brain Research
Volume 150 , 2005, Pages 331-350

Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) are defined as experiences in which a person seems to be awake and sees his body and the world from a location outside his physical body. More precisely, they can be defined by the presence of the following three phenomenological characteristics: (i) disembodiment (location of the self outside one's body); (ii) the impression of seeing the world from an elevated and distanced visuo-spatial perspective (extracorporeal, but egocentric visuo-spatial perspective); and (iii) the impression of seeing one's own body (autoscopy) from this perspective. OBEs have fascinated mankind from time immemorial and are abundant in folklore, mythology, and spiritual experiences of most ancient and modern societies. Here, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. We argue that the experimental investigation of the interactions between these multisensory and cognitive mechanisms in OBEs and related illusions in combination with neuroimaging and behavioral techniques might further our understanding of the central mechanisms of corporal awareness and self-consciousness much as previous research about the neural bases of complex body part illusions such as phantom limbs has done.

Dinosaur

10-20-05, 09:03 AM

duendy

10-20-05, 10:07 AM

qbeac, you and your ollagues over at the Spanish forums are the true scientists, and Dinosaur and those herewho are giving you a hard time ar the ones who are devotees of sciencism as is thier chief guru Carl Sagan
i dont know who Dinosaur thinks he is. ARE you the moderator of tis thread Dinosuar?....If not, and qbeaks very interesting contributions here haven't been flung out of scineceism heaven to the infernal cesspit--why do you take it upon yourself to dictate what we can explore as science, by constantly feakin out about this??
as qbeak has already toled you. your science is completely un-hip. sooooo, get hip, and learn to get a open mind again. i find your constant hysterical arrogance about what is 'true scinc' to be embarassing. and i would if i was forum owner as well, for the pople in Spain seem much more on the ball

now i do not want to derail this thread wit bickerings about what is real science or not. i just had to say my bit about your sorry attitude being pushed over the proceedings

qbeac

10-20-05, 10:31 AM

I hope the last two posts made it clear that no further experimentation is required to determine the reality of the OBE experience. Some decent analysis has indicated that it is not real, but is due to some malfunction in the brain. I am surprised that it is real to some of those who claim to have experienced it. I would have guessed otherwise.

It is interesting that research into the mechanism causing the experience has some value in analyzing brain malfunction. I would not have guessed that it is vaguely related to the phantom limb syndrom.

BTW: I would not have posted against researchers such as those cited in the last two posts. My problem is with those who seem to have some hope of showing that it is a real phenomenon.
Hi Dinosaur, in my opinion, the above articles (“Blanke O, Arzy S.” and “Progress in Brain Research”) both say similar things. Let’s take sentences from the second one (they would also apply to the first one):

“…The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to…”

And “a suggestion” is not “a proof.”

The second article also says:

“...We argue that... (etc.)… might further our understanding of…”

And "to argue that" something (Ex: brain research) “might further their understanding of” something else (Ex: real nature of OBE), is not the same as to say that “they are totally sure of” the real nature of that something else (OBE). On the contrary, they openly admit that they do not know everything about this subject, because otherwise they would not need to “further their understanding of….”

The truth of the matter is that the scientific community does not have (or has not shown us) a conclusive proof of the real nature of these experiences.

Please, show us articles (from prestigious scientific journals) “clearly stating” that they have already obtained “conclusive proofs” indicating that these experiences are imaginary (simply a product of the mind). If you find them, we will debate them here from a scientific perspective.

Chao. qbeac.

kazakhan

10-20-05, 11:31 AM

Astral Projection and OBE do not have enough credibility to belong in a science forum.
Science is about applying the scientific method. Can you falisfy it or failing that produce the results of someone that has? If not stop your bitching.
I hope the last two posts made it clear that no further experimentation is required to determine the reality of the OBE experience.
Of course only one experiment was ever needed to prove E=mc² :rolleyes:
BTW: I would not have posted against researchers such as those cited in the last two posts.
Why? Because their research supports you own pre-concieved notion that OBEs are not real?
My problem is with those who seem to have some hope of showing that it is a real phenomenon.
No you don't. You have a problem with people that believe OBEs are real. Many a scientist has started research in the hopes it would prove some idea of theirs often enough proving themselves wrong. Do you poo-poo all researchers or just those researching questions of which you've decided you already know the answer?
I can't say I believe people can consciously leave their bodies but who am I to piss on someones genuine attempt at learning more about our consciousness regardless of how amatuer the research may or may not be.

Dinosaur

10-20-05, 04:41 PM

Qbeac: Quoting out of context is the intellectual equivalent of lying. You posted the following.. . .The reviewed data suggest that OBEs . . .[/b]The above without any context and your supporting remarks imply that the researchers have little to say against OBE’s being real.

Some additional context surely implies that they consider the phenomenon to be illusionary, somewhat analogous to the phantom limb phenomenonHere, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. . . .much as previous research about the neural bases of complex body part illusions such as phantom limbs has done.In the above, I have emphasized your quote out of context. Note the last part of the above which references phantom limbs.

The above surely implies that some legitimate researchers consider OBE & related concepts to be illusions, rather than real phenomena.

Note the following from your post.The truth of the matter is that the scientific community does not have (or has not shown us) a conclusive proof of the real nature of these experiences.Believers in pseudo science and parapsychology (I am being redundant here) are very prone to requesting a disproof of their nonsensical concepts. This is a ridiculous point of view. The burden of proof is on those proposing a concept contrary to (or currently unaccepted by) mainstream science.

There are several clues which can be used to identity pseudo scientific nonsense. One such clue is talk about the lack of a disproof.

Furthermore, in any soft science (pseudo or not), asking for a proof or disproof is far too stringent a requirement. You do not get anything remotely like what logicians call a proof, only strong arguments supported by experimental evidence.

The OBE, astral projection, remote viewing concepts have been discussed by the lunatic fringe for well over 100 years. Prior to the 20th century, it might have been too harsh to use the term lunatic fringe. After 100 years without anything remotely suggestive of supporting evidence or a cogent description of a mechanism, the concepts should be laid to rest.

BTW: You are correct, I am not a moderator of this or any other forum. If I were, this thread would have been moved to the parapsychology forum

qbeac

10-21-05, 06:43 AM

Tombo

10-21-05, 12:46 PM

BTW: I would not have posted against researchers such as those cited in the last two posts. My problem is with those who seem to have some hope of showing that it is a real phenomenon.

That says it all. You are not a scientist but a pseudoscientist. Because you think only experiments that would confirm your current worldview (OBE= Nonsense) should be considered science. This is an oafish and biased viewpoint which would prevent science to evolve. I asked you for a logical argument why this thread should not be considered science but you failed to give that as well.

Dinosaur

10-21-05, 08:23 PM

Tombo: Are you aware that OBE, Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, et cetera have been talked about for hundreds of years? In all that time none of the believers have come up with anything but anecdotal evidence.

Have you ever read anything about the subject? If so, what have you read? You seem to be a believer in the reality of it.

How long should a mind be kept open to the possibility that some experiment will provide supporting evidence? After well over 100 years of no evidence, I feel justified in stating that I do not expect future experiments to find evidence. Note the intent of the legitimate researchers as suggested by the following.OBEs have fascinated mankind from time immemorial and are abundant in folklore, mythology, and spiritual experiences of most ancient and modern societies.

Here, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction.

We argue that the experimental investigation of the interactions between these multisensory and cognitive mechanisms in OBEs and related illusions in combination with neuroimaging and behavioral techniques might further our understanding of the central mechanisms of corporal awareness and self-consciousness much as previous research about the neural bases of complex body part illusions such as phantom limbs has done.When real scientists write articles including statements such as the above, It makes me consider OBE to be a malfunction of the human brain rather than a real phenomenon.

BTW: I am not claiming that experiments not be done or discussed. I am stating that after 100 years without evidence, the subject belongs in a pseudo science or parapsychology forum, not a science forum. There is ample reason to classify it as pseudo science.

Tombo

10-22-05, 05:22 AM

Tombo: Are you aware that OBE, Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, et cetera have been talked about for hundreds of years? In all that time none of the believers have come up with anything but anecdotal evidence.

Have you ever read anything about the subject? If so, what have you read? You seem to be a believer in the reality of it.

How long should a mind be kept open to the possibility that some experiment will provide supporting evidence? After well over 100 years of no evidence, I feel justified in stating that I do not expect future experiments to find evidence. Note the intent of the legitimate researchers as suggested by the following

BTW: I am not claiming that experiments not be done or discussed. I am stating that after 100 years without evidence, the subject belongs in a pseudo science or parapsychology forum, not a science forum. There is ample reason to classify it as pseudo science.

Nice to see that you seem to take a more neutral viewpoint. I certainly see were you are coming form and I also think that your viewpoint is legitimate I must say though, that there are good reasons to believe in the possiblity that OBE's are not mere fantasies (in my opinion)

If there is only "anecdotal evidence". Is a debatable viewpoint, For example there are plenty of reports of People experiencing OBE like states while being in a state of Braindeath (NDE). I'm sure qbeac can provide some Studies concerning this if not I will search for them later if you are interessted.

Then we can discuss if they open up the possiblity of OBE's beeing real.

So I wait for qbeac to give some data cause I believe he mentioned that he had them at hand.

Quantum Quack

10-22-05, 05:22 AM

Thats your believe as such it doesn't belong to a science forum as well. Make a logical argument why it shouldn't belong here. Credibilty is not a logical argument. How much credibilty did Nikolaus Kopernikus have as he claimed that the earth is not in the center of the universe? Not much, still it was unscientific to dismiss his ideas because of that.
'tis funny this, because they [ scientists ] now believe that every spacetime co-ordinate point is the center of the universe...ha...sorry I couldn't resist the irony. The earth is now considered to be the center of the universe.

Seriously though this thread should be in the pseudo science forums if anything to avoid confusing the naive reader into believing that this is actually proven science. I do accept that you are attempting to use the desire for credibile testing as a way of soliciting support for your ideas but this still is an issue for pseudo science and not a mainstream forum like this one. IMO So I agree with Dinasaur.

duendy

10-22-05, 06:28 AM

Tombo: Are you aware that OBE, Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, et cetera have been talked about for hundreds of years? In all that time none of the believers have come up with anything but anecdotal evidence.

me::oh dear gad, mr superior scientist sir, doesn't the length of time this issue has been discussed not intuit you that something may be ABOUT it...? and why do you distrust human 'anecdotal' evidence so much? do you not even trs your OWn perceptions and feelings? please answer honestly

Have you ever read anything about the subject? If so, what have you read? You seem to be a believer in the reality of it.

me::wat hve YOU read on it? just stuff which 'scientifically' explains it away i bet

How long should a mind be kept open to the possibility that some experiment will provide supporting evidence? After well over 100 years of no evidence, I feel justified in stating that I do not expect future experiments to find evidence. Note the intent of the legitimate researchers as suggested by the following.OBEs have fascinated mankind from time immemorial and are abundant in folklore, mythology, and spiritual experiences of most ancient and modern societies.

me::of corse it fascinates mankind. but apparently not positivist science. such a thin foam on the top of deep deep well.

Here, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction.

me::absolute poppycock...'functional disintegration'?...'abnormal ...bla bla'? where do you get this stuff from. i sose you agree wit it like i exect you agree with the myth of mental illness. am i right or am i right mr dinosaur?...dont have to answer cuase i KNO what you will say

We argue that the experimental investigation of the interactions between these multisensory and cognitive mechanisms in OBEs and related illusions in combination with neuroimaging and behavioral techniques might further our understanding of the central mechanisms of corporal awareness and self-consciousness much as previous research about the neural bases of complex body part illusions such as phantom limbs has done.When real scientists write articles including statements such as the above, It makes me consider OBE to be a malfunction of the human brain rather than a real phenomenon.

me::exactly......'malfunction'. you aren't even aware that there is no real scientific proof of se-called mntal illness are you mrclever dick ?

BTW: I am not claiming that experiments not be done or discussed. I am stating that after 100 years without evidence, the subject belongs in a pseudo science or parapsychology forum, not a science forum. There is ample reason to classify it as pseudo science.
no...mate. YOU belong in your 'bin' pseudoscience

and speaking to others who have created this thread, the really (underlined) scientific people in Spainish forum. i find it incredibly intersting and will follow it wherever it goes. thanks

Tombo

10-22-05, 07:16 AM

Well we shouldn't get too nasty here :m:

I certainly understand were you guys (the critics) are coming from "physics" I'm myself are a physic student and will get my master in 10 months so i really understand your viewpoint BUT:

Isn't this Human Science here?

There is enough evidence to proof that OBE's do really happen as such it belongs certainly to Psychology and to brain science as a fact. It might not belong to physics because of lack of evidence that something outside the brain is taking place but it sure belongs to human science.Now, the "obvious" Theorie would be that OBE's are indeed created by the brain BUT there are some anomalys to this theorie which we could discuss further if you guys are interested. So we have people that reaserch that anamoly and come up with theories that try to explain that anomaly. Isn't that pretty similar to some things that are happening in Physics right now? Just think about all the unproven theories that people talk about in quantuum science, would you put these into parascience as well?

duendy

10-22-05, 07:30 AM

Dinosaur

10-22-05, 08:32 AM

Tombo: Some examples of the following?Just think about all the unproven theories that people talk about in quantuum science, would you put these into parascience as well?What unproven theories are you referring to?

qbeac

10-22-05, 08:57 AM

i wasn't nasty. i am chllenging the superiority of pseudoscience masquearading as science. The former has not qualms at all labelling someone as 'mentally malfuncioning' if they share about their 'OBE' experience, thus stigmatizing them; as is done to many people who are claimed by the same mindset that they have 'mental illness' which they mean is a biological disease. Even thought there is not one shred of scientific evidence!!

My pointing this out is important because that mindset is the one that is exceptionally cold and nasty and far from harmless!!
Hi duendy, your are totally right. Take a look at this article by Debbie James, from the MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. It is very recent, from the year 2004:

What Emergency Department Staff Need to Know About Near-Death Experiences
Debbie James. Topics in Emergency Medicine.
Jan-Mar 2004.Vol.26, Iss. 1; pg. 29, 6 pgs
- Nursing Center [Centro de Enfermería]:
http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=493684
- Blog de Tom Coburn [complete text of the article]:
http://tomcoburnisabigfatjerk.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_tomcoburnisabigfatjerk_archive.html

Excerpt:
SUMMARY

The NDE is not uncommon, but is so profound and personal that often the experiencer desires to disclose the event immediately after it occurs. This desire frequently results in an attempt to share the event with those responsible for the care of the experiencer. Health care professionals are often in a position to promote a path of physical and spiritual health and well-being. Therefore, their increased awareness and sensitivity of the needs of the NDEer are essential.

The need to create a healing environment was first documented by Florence Nightingale12 in I860 in her Notes on Nursing. In many cases, the NDE occurs in a health care setting, such as a hospital, ambulance, or clinic, wherein the nurses and physicians, and sometimes clergy and family, are immediately available to the NDEer. Health care professionals play a key role in the promotion of an environment of healing.

The decision as to which individual(s) the experiencer will select for disclosure depends primarily on the demonstration of specific caring behaviors of the caregiver. The NDEer must recognize the promotion of a safe environment before sharing is possible. The response to the first attempt at disclosure will have a serious impact on future disclosure decisions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Possible interventions for ED staff caring for patients who have had an NDE might include but are not limited to the following:

* Actively listen to verbal and nonverbal communication. The patient may desire to share very personal data and may be searching for permission to proceed. Remain alert to phrases like "I had a strange dream," or "a weird thing happened."

* Foster a caring environment. Use positive language and pleasant tones of voice. Promote a healing atmosphere in every aspect of patient care. Realize that even in resuscitation efforts patients may be aware of certain behaviors.

* Listen. Allow the patient to describe what is on his mind and do not interrupt with explanations about drugs and hypoxia. Remain nonjudgmental.

(……….)

* Inform colleagues. Assist other health care providers in understanding the significance of the NDE and the support the experiencer needs.

* Utilize available resources. For further information, such as frightening NDEs, NDEs in children, and additional aftereffects, contact the International Association for Near-Death Studies at www.IANDS.org.

* Share the story. Share NDEer's stories with those who survive close brushes with death. Listen.Additional info about that article:

- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Topics in Emergency Medicine:
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/tme/toc.00007815-200401000-00000.htm;jsessionid=DM0QnlEFrisVvt80PK1YWgVJVVAXm 4SGcWhrNv9ZZinePhpYKGBH!-365670234!-949856145!9001!-1

URL del MD Anderson CC: http://www.mdanderson.org/
URL de la University of Texas: http://www.utexas.edu

qbeac

10-22-05, 08:59 AM

And take also a look at the SAMPLE of the previous article extracted from the Nursing Center:

http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=493684

SAMPLE:

Caring for patients in the emergency department is more challenging today than at any time in the past. Healthcare providers must stay abreast of constant changes in technology and therapy, as well as new developments in resuscitation. They must also possess strong interpersonal skills to help them work with different family dynamics and crisis situations. But there is MORE! Researchers report that 1 in 3 patients who encounter a close brush with death will have a near-death experience (NDE). This article will provide the reader with a foundation of knowledge regarding the NDE which will promote the establishment of a caring environment and encourage disclosure. A review of the literature will reflect the most current research in this area. Factors that influence disclosure and nondisclosure will be included. This article concludes with suggested interventions for care of the emergency department patient who has had an NDE.

So, even if these experiences were only imaginary (a product of the mind), they would still be of interest for Human Science.

Now the big question is this one:

Are these experiences real or imaginary?

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

qbeac

10-22-05, 09:28 AM

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 find out whether these experiences are real or imaginary.

Un saludo. qbeac.

qbeac

10-22-05, 01:40 PM

Tombo

10-23-05, 06:11 AM

Tombo: Some examples of the following?What unproven theories are you referring to?

Maybe I should have said Physics not Quantuum Physics .

So I was thinking about theories like:

-Particles are vibrating strings
-The universe has more than 4 dimensions
-Tachyons (Don't know if spelled correct....)
-Particles are probability functions
-M-theorie
-The universe was created by the collision of 2 higherdim. membrans

etc. Basically every theory is unproven otherwise we wouldn't call it theory would we?! But lets not get into this.

BTW: I have OBE's from time to time, you can label my mental ill though, I don't care.

qbeac

10-26-05, 05:23 AM

Hi everybody, if you would like to get further information about the way to obtain conclusive proof about these experiences, we have been delving on the specifics of the scientific principles behind the Agnostic Method in this link:

Whats Your Proof?
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=179236#179236

Bye, qbeac.

Dinosaur

10-26-05, 10:06 PM

As I expected after reading the initial post to this thread, we now have a discussion of OBE in a science thread. The posts have started digressing from a discussion of experimental design to implications that OBE phenomenon have been shown to have some validity.

I repeat my opinion that this thread should be moved to the Parapsychology or the Pseudo Science forum.

I further think there is obfuscation going on due to the claim that translation from Spanish is too time consuimg or diffficult to do correctly. Is the vocabulary and syntax of Spanish so fundamentallly different from English that there is some difficulty? Bull**t.

BTW: A translation problem due to Hofstader: This English sentence is difficult to translate into French.

qbeac

10-27-05, 01:27 AM

Hi Dinosaur, in the following link you’ll see the main index of the Spanish Medicine sub-forum where we have been debating this subject during several months by now. If you click on the button which says “visitas” (meaning “views”), which is on the right of the second blue strip starting from the top, you will realize that it has 21,000 views and over 300 posts. That’s 30 pages of text. That’s a lot of text, and it is indeed very time consuming to translate everything to English. Besides that, it is not the only thread in which we debated this issue in that forum. This is the link:

INDEX of the Spanish Medicine sub-forum (www.100cia.com):
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/forumdisplay.php?f=14&daysprune=-1&order=desc&sort=views

qbeac

10-27-05, 01:28 AM

Hi Dinosaur, the Agnostic Method is a scientific method that we believe could help us to verify if these experiences are real or imaginary. We really believe it can! If you check the method (see pag. 1 of this thread) it is based on the mathematical probabilities of guessing by chance different types of random numbers, which have been calculated in two Spanish Mathematics forums by professional mathematicians. And mathematical calculations do not lie (Ex: check out Table 1 of this method in pag. 1 of this thread).

But let’s suppose that the method was not well designed, or that we have made any big conceptual mistake about it, etc. (which, by the way, we would appreciate for scientists to tell us if they realize of it). Even if that was the case, or further more, even in the case these types of experiences were only imaginary (a product of the brain, such as hallucinations, dreams, etc.), they would still be of interest for “Human Science” according to what Debbie James, from the “MD Anderson Cancer Center”, Houston, Texas, USA (one of the most prestigious cancer centers in the world), explains in the following article:

What Emergency Department Staff Need to Know About Near-Death Experiences
Debbie James. Topics in Emergency Medicine.
Jan-Mar 2004.Vol.26, Iss. 1; pg. 29, 6 pgs
Nursing Center [Centro de Enfermería]:
http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=493684
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Topics in Emergency Medicine:
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/tme/toc.00007815-200401000-00000.htm;jsessionid=DM0QnlEFrisVvt80PK1YWgVJVVAXm 4SGcWhrNv9ZZinePhpYKGBH!-365670234!-949856145!9001!-1
Blog de Tom Coburn [texto completo del artículo]:
http://tomcoburnisabigfatjerk.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_tomcoburnisabigfatjerk_archive.html
URL MD Anderson Cancer Center: http://www.mdanderson.org/

Excerpt:

SUMMARY

The NDE is not uncommon, but is so profound and personal that often the experiencer desires to disclose the event immediately after it occurs. This desire frequently results in an attempt to share the event with those responsible for the care of the experiencer. Health care professionals are often in a position to promote a path of physical and spiritual health and well-being. Therefore, their increased awareness and sensitivity of the needs of the NDEer are essential.

The need to create a healing environment was first documented by Florence Nightingale12 in I860 in her Notes on Nursing. In many cases, the NDE occurs in a health care setting, such as a hospital, ambulance, or clinic, wherein the nurses and physicians, and sometimes clergy and family, are immediately available to the NDEer. Health care professionals play a key role in the promotion of an environment of healing.

The decision as to which individual(s) the experiencer will select for disclosure depends primarily on the demonstration of specific caring behaviors of the caregiver. The NDEer must recognize the promotion of a safe environment before sharing is possible. The response to the first attempt at disclosure will have a serious impact on future disclosure decisions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Possible interventions for ED staff caring for patients who have had an NDE might include but are not limited to the following:

* Actively listen to verbal and nonverbal communication. The patient may desire to share very personal data and may be searching for permission to proceed. Remain alert to phrases like "I had a strange dream," or "a weird thing happened."

* Foster a caring environment. Use positive language and pleasant tones of voice. Promote a healing atmosphere in every aspect of patient care. Realize that even in resuscitation efforts patients may be aware of certain behaviors.

* Listen. Allow the patient to describe what is on his mind and do not interrupt with explanations about drugs and hypoxia. Remain nonjudgmental.

(……….)

* Inform colleagues. Assist other health care providers in understanding the significance of the NDE and the support the experiencer needs.

* Utilize available resources. For further information, such as frightening NDEs, NDEs in children, and additional aftereffects, contact the International Association for Near-Death Studies at www.IANDS.org.

* Share the story. Share NDEer's stories with those who survive close brushes with death. Listen.

qbeac

11-02-05, 03:20 PM

Hello everybody, we are having a debate in an astral projection forum, and we have met several quite experienced projectors. One of them says reading the two words taken at random from the dictionary from the astral plane "is not that difficult." We are talking about conducting the experiments, the importance of doing them, how they could be done, the procedures, the probabilities of guessing by chance, etc.

In case any of you would like to take a look at that debate, this is the link:

Thread: Whats your proof?
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21011&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=30

Chao. qbeac.

qbeac

11-07-05, 03:55 PM

Hello everybody, in relation to the issue of trying to obtain scientific proof about OBE experiences, 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.

qbeac

11-22-05, 09:31 PM

Hi everybody, this is a good movie which talks about topics related to some of the things we have been talking about in this thread:

What the BLEEP Do We Know!?
http://www.whatthebleep.com/
http://www.noetic.org/community/groups.cfm

SYNOPSIS

WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW?! is a new type of film. It is part documentary, part story, and part elaborate and inspiring visual effects and animations. The protagonist, Amanda, played by Marlee Matlin, finds herself in a fantastic Alice in Wonderland experience when her daily, uninspired life literally begins to unravel, revealing the uncertain world of the quantum field hidden behind what we consider to be our normal, waking reality.

She is literally plunged into a swirl of chaotic occurrences, while the characters she encounters on this odyssey reveal the deeper, hidden knowledge she doesn’t even realize she has asked for. Like every hero, Amanda is thrown into crisis, questioning the fundamental premises of her life – that the reality she has believed in about how men are, how relationships with others should be, and how her emotions are affecting her work isn’t reality at all! … (it continues)

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

I recommend it to anyone. Enjoy it!!!

Un abrazo, qbeac.

Dinosaur

11-23-05, 12:05 AM

As I expected, we are now getting links to anecdotal evidence of OBE. The ruse of talking about designing a scientific experiment is shown to be an attempt to use smoke & mirrors to talk about OBE.

As posted earlier, this thread belongs in some pseudo science forum. It is not even soft science.

qbeac

11-23-05, 04:01 AM

Hi Dinosaur, we are very much interested indeed in conducting scientific research about OBEs. We are already experimenting with an experienced astral projector who says it can have controlled OBEs (we’ll see if that’s true or not). So, we’ll see what results this person yields. You can see what type of experiment we are trying to do at links:

- Detailed explanation of the method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences. Post #8, pag. 8:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=180207#180207

- Plus, in Spanish, you’ll be able to see another explanation of that method in a very good Spanish Science forum called 100cia.com, in Post #321, pag.33:
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?p=39742#post39742

But besides doing the experiments, which we would encourage other scientists to do the same thing we are doing, we are also interested in keeping an open mind approach about this research, because of several reasons. For instance, because of the latest findings in modern quantum Physics, String Theory, etc.

Besides that, Dinosaur, “Do you remember how electrical currents and "unseen waves" were laughed at? The knowledge about man is still in its infancy.”
- Albert Einstein

And we also want to keep an opened mind towards this research because:

“Whoever talks about Planck's constant and does not feel at least a little giddy obviously doesn't appreciate what he is talking about.”
- Niels Bohr (quoted by Teller: see French & Kennedy 1985, p.182)”

And because: “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”
- Albert Einstein

And because: “To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.”
- Copernicus

And because: “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science.”
- Albert Einstein

Those are several reasons why we want to keep an opened mind about this scientific research.

Un saludo, qbeac.

P.D. The above quotes you’ll find them in the “What the BLEEP Do We Know!?” site, plus in the original texts about those authors, plus in this site, now.

Dinosaur

11-23-05, 08:55 AM

qbeac: You started this thread on the pretext of discussing how to design a scientific experiment or prove or disprove OBE. I have no doubt that you are an advocate of and a believer in the validity of this nonsense, needing no experiment to convince yourself.

If you have any intellectual integrity, you will stick to discussion of your experimental methods.

Out of context quotes by brilliant scientists have nothing to do with your experimental design.

References to quantum physics and sting theory are mere speculation, not related to any experimental design. I doubt if a believer in OBE has much, if any, knowledge of these subjects.

Links to anecdotes from those who claim to have the experience are attempts to convince the naive without actually doing an experiment.

As I posted very early, this thread belongs in some pseudo science forum. It is not really a discussion of an experimental design.

If you want to argue about the validity of OBE, start a thread in some pseudo science forum. Post a note here mentioning the title of that thread.

qbeac

11-23-05, 09:28 AM

Hi Dinosaur, Dr. Pim van Lommel is one of the pioneer scientists who have done serious research about Near Death Experiences, or NDE. His research on NDEs was published in the scientific journal The Lancet only four years ago, in the year 2001.

There are several other scientists around the world who right now are conducting similar research projects, such as Dr. Bruce Greyson, Dr. Parnia, Dr. Fenwick, Dr. Long, etc. We have included several of those articles in this thread so that everybody can take a look at them if they so desire. This subject (NDE, OBE, etc.) is under scientific investigation, and those investigations are quite scientific indeed. At the same time, this is not a closed subject, there are not final conclusions yet, further investigations need to be undertaken in order to obtain a deeper understanding of it. But so far, there is plenty of scientific evidence which indicates that consciousness may be a very different thing that what humanity has been to lead to believe so far.

Our Spanish research on OBEs is intended to shed some light in that regard. But the research process is a dynamic one, and with time, more people and more investigations are coming to light. For instance, the following is a very recent article published by Dr. Pim van Lommel in the year 2004. In it, he talks about the possibility of the continuity of consciousness. Although it is a fairly long article, I’ll include here only the conclusion of it:

About the Continuity of Our Consciousness
http://iands.org/research/vanLommel/vanLommel.php

Pim van Lommel,
Cardiologist, Division of Cardiology, Hospital Rijnstate, PO Box 9555, 6800 TA Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Originally published in: Brain Death and Disorders of Consciousness. Machado, C. and Shewmon, D.A., Eds. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology Adv Exp Med Biol. 2004; 550: 115-132.

Brief excerpt (Final conclusion):

10. CONCLUSION

According to our concept, grounded on the reported aspects of consciousness experienced during cardiac arrest, we can conclude that our consciousness could be based on fields of information, consisting of waves, and that it originates in the phase-space. During cardiac arrest, the functioning of the brain and of other cells in our body stops because of anoxia. The electromagnetic fields of our neurons and other cells disappear, and the possibility of resonance, the interface between consciousness and physical body, is interrupted.

Such understanding fundamentally changes one’s opinion about death, because of the almost unavoidable conclusion that at the time of physical death consciousness will continue to be experienced in another dimension, in an invisible and immaterial world, the phase-space, in which all past, present and future is enclosed. Research on NDE cannot give us the irrefutable scientific proof of this conclusion, because people with an NDE did not quite die, but they all were very, very close to death, without a functioning brain.

The conclusion that consciousness can be experienced independently of brain function might well induce a huge change in the scientific paradigm in western medicine, and could have practical implications in actual medical and ethical problems such as the care for comatose or dying patients, euthanasia, abortion, and the removal of organs for transplantation from somebody in the dying process with a beating heart in a warm body but a diagnosis of brain death.

There are still more questions than answers, but, based on the aforementioned theoretical aspects of the obviously experienced continuity of our consciousness, we finally should consider the possibility that death, like birth, may well be a mere passing from one state of consciousness to another.

Dinosaur

11-23-05, 09:37 PM

Qbeac: This subject has been around for at least 100 years. It has been called OBE, Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, and probably other names. In all that time, it has failed to gain legitimacy. Relativity and Quantum Theory were every bit as incredible to classical physicists and just about everybody else. Yet they gained acceptance 5-10 years after being presented.

Obviously you want to argue the validity of this occult nonsense. The talk about designing a scientific experiment was a ruse to justify posting in a science forum instead of in a pseudo science forum.

Are you tired of preaching to the choir and want to find some naive people unfamiliar with the subject?

Your intellectual integrity seems to be almost non-existent.

As previously posted, this thread belongs in a pseudo science forum. It does not deserve recognition here.

DarkThorn

11-23-05, 11:33 PM

Hahahaha jesus dinosaur..you are like a fucking broken record. Ok so the thread is not posted where it should be, forget about it then and move on. If a mod then comes along and moves it then fair enough but until then it is doing you no real harm being here.

Breathe in and move on with your life.

qbeac

11-24-05, 12:33 AM

Hi Dinosaur, the following is only a brief excerpt from the very long article Dr. Pim van Lommel (cardiologist) published in the medical journal The Lancet in the year 2001. Many doctors and nurses from 10 Dutch Hospitals worked on it and I believe it took around 13 years to be completed. That’s a long time and a lot of effort! This is the type of scientific research I am personally in favour of doing, because even though they are very difficult to do, it is necessary somebody does them. I feel very grateful to all those professional scientists, and doctors, and nurses, and hospital staff who participated in it and made it possible for us to finally be able to read it. In the following text I have underlined several sentences I consider to be key points from this article:

http://www.thelancet.com/search/search.isa
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/2/soul.htm
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htm

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands

Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich

Division of Cardiology, Hospital Rijnstate, Arnhem, Netherlands (P van Lommel MD); Tilburg, Netherlands (R van Wees PhD); Nijmegen, Netherlands (V Meyers PhD); and Capelle a/d Ijssel, Netherlands (I Elfferich PhD)

Brief excerpt (only a few paragraphs from the article have been included here):

Summary

Background. Some people report a near-death experience (NDE) after a life-threatening crisis. We aimed to establish the cause of this experience and assess factors that affected its frequency, depth, and content.

Methods. In a prospective study, we included 344 consecutive cardiac patients who were successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest in ten Dutch hospitals. We compared demographic, medical, pharmacological, and psychological data between patients who reported NDE and patients who did not (controls) after resuscitation. In a longitudinal study of life changes after NDE, we compared the groups 2 and 8 years later.

Findings. 62 patients (18%) reported NDE, of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience. Occurrence of the experience was not associated with duration of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, medication, or fear of death before cardiac arrest. Frequency of NDE was affected by how we defined NDE, the prospective nature of the research in older cardiac patients, age, surviving cardiac arrest in first myocardial infarction, more than one cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during stay in hospital, previous NDE, and memory problems after prolonged CPR. Depth of the experience was affected by sex, surviving CPR outside hospital, and fear before cardiac arrest. Significantly more patients who had an NDE, especially a deep experience, died within 30 days of CPR (p<0•0001). The process of transformation after NDE took several years, and differed from those of patients who survived cardiac arrest without NDE.

Interpretation. We do not know why so few cardiac patients report NDE after CPR, although age plays a part. With a purely physiological explanation such as cerebral anoxia for the experience, most patients who have been clinically dead should report one.

Lancet 2001; 358: 2039-45

Introduction

Some people who have survived a life-threatening crisis report an extraordinary experience. Near-death experience (NDE) occurs with increasing frequency because of improved survival rates resulting from modern techniques of resuscitation. The content of NDE and the effects on patients seem similar worldwide, across all cultures and times. The subjective nature and absence of a frame of reference for this experience lead to individual, cultural, and religious factors determining the vocabulary used to describe and interpret the experience.1

NDE are reported in many circumstances: cardiac arrest in myocardial infarction (clinical death), shock in postpartum loss of blood or in perioperative complications, septic or anaphylactic shock, electrocution, coma resulting from traumatic brain damage, intracerebral haemorrhage or cerebral infarction, attempted suicide, near-drowning or asphyxia, and apnoea. Such experiences are also reported by patients with serious but not immediately life-threatening diseases, in those with serious depression, or without clear cause in fully conscious people. Similar experiences to near-death ones can occur during the terminal phase of illness, and are called deathbed visions. Identical experiences to NDE, so-called fear-death experiences, are mainly reported after situations in which death seemed unavoidable: serious traffic accidents, mountaineering accidents, or isolation such as with shipwreck.

Several theories on the origin of NDE have been proposed. Some think the experience is caused by physiological changes in the brain, such as brain cells dying as a result of cerebral anoxia.2-4 Other theories encompass a psychological reaction to approaching death,5 or a combination of such reaction and anoxia.6 Such experiences could also be linked to a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which perception, cognitive functioning, emotion, and sense of identity function independently from normal body-linked waking consciousness.7 People who have had an NDE are psychologically healthy, although some show non-pathological signs of dissociation.7 Such people do not differ from controls with respect to age, sex, ethnic origin, religion, or degree of religious belief.1

Studies on NDE1,3,8,9 have been retrospective and very selective with respect to patients. In retrospective studies, 5-10 years can elapse between occurrence of the experience and its investigation, which often prevents accurate assessment of physiological and pharmacological factors. In retrospective studies, between 43%8 and 48%1 of adults and up to 85% of children10 who had a life-threatening illness were estimated to have had an NDE. A random investigation of more than 2000 Germans showed 4•3% to have had an NDE at a mean age of 22 years.11 Differences in estimates of frequency and uncertainty as to causes of this experience result from varying definitions of the phenomenon, and from inadequate methods of research.12 Patients' transformational processes after an NDE are very similar1,3,13-16 and encompass life-changing insight, heightened intuition, and disappearance of fear of death. Assimilation and acceptance of these changes is thought to take at least several years.15

We did a prospective study to calculate the frequency of NDE in patients after cardiac arrest (an objective critical medical situation), and establish factors that affected the frequency, content, and depth of the experience. We also did a longitudinal study to assess the effect of time, memory, and suppression mechanisms on the process of transformation after NDE, and to reaffirm the content and allow further study of the experience. We also proposed to reassess theories on the cause and content of NDE.

(……rest of the article, it is a fairly long article…….)

Discussion

Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE. Furthermore, seriousness of the crisis was not related to occurrence or depth of the experience. If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience. Patients' medication was also unrelated to frequency of NDE. Psychological factors are unlikely to be important as fear was not associated with NDE.

The 18% frequency of NDE that we noted is lower than reported in retrospective studies,1,8 which could be because our prospective study design prevented self-selection of patients. Our frequency of NDE is low despite our wide definition of the experience. Only 12% of patients had a core NDE, and this figure might be an overestimate. When we analysed our results, we noted that one hospital that participated in the study for nearly 4 years, and from which 137 patients were included, reported a significantly (p=0•01) lower percentage of NDE (8%), and significantly (p=0•05) fewer deep experiences. Therefore, possibly some selection of patients occurred in the other hospitals, which sometimes only took part for a few months. In a prospective study17 with the same design as ours, 6% of 63 survivors of cardiac arrest reported a core experience, and another 5% had memories with features of an NDE (low score in our study); thus, with our wide definition of the experience, 11% of these patients reported an NDE. Therefore, true frequency of the experience is likely to be about 10%, or 5% if based on number of resuscitations rather than number of resuscitated patients. Patients who survive several CPRs in hospital have a significantly higher chance of NDE (table 3).

(…)

Good short-term memory seems to be essential for remembering NDE. Patients with memory defects after prolonged resuscitation reported fewer experiences than other patients in our study. Forgetting or repressing such experiences in the first days after CPR was unlikely to have occurred in the remaining patients, because no relation was found between frequency of NDE and date of first interview. However, at 2-year follow-up, two patients remembered a core NDE and two an NDE that consisted of only positive emotions that they had not reported shortly after CPR, presumably because of memory defects at that time. It is remarkable that people could recall their NDE almost exactly after 2 and 8 years.

(…)

Our longitudinal follow-up research into transformational processes after NDE confirms the transformation described by many others.1-3,8,10,13-16,21 Several of these investigations included a control group to enable study of differences in transformation,14 but in our research, patients were interviewed three times during 8 years, with a matched control group. Our findings show that this process of change after NDE tends to take several years to consolidate. Presumably, besides possible internal psychological processes, one reason for this has to do with society's negative response to NDE, which leads individuals to deny or suppress their experience for fear of rejection or ridicule. Thus, social conditioning causes NDE to be traumatic, although in itself it is not a psychotraumatic experience. As a result, the effects of the experience can be delayed for years, and only gradually and with difficulty is an NDE accepted and integrated. Furthermore, the longlasting transformational effects of an experience that lasts for only a few minutes of cardiac arrest is a surprising and unexpected finding.

(…)

Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest. Sabom22 mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.

(…)

Thus, induced experiences are not identical to NDE, and so, besides age, an unknown mechanism causes NDE by stimulation of neurophysiological and neurohumoral processes at a subcellular level in the brain in only a few cases during a critical situation such as clinical death. These processes might also determine whether the experience reaches consciousness and can be recollected.

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception.7,8,22,28,31

Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.

Post Reply

Create New Thread