Scientific method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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/...ed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9423966&query_hl=1
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11703546
- http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=493684
- http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/tme/to...v9ZZinePhpYKGBH!-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.

 

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/

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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’

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..

 

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.

 

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:

And here another one (a book this time):

 

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.