Thread: A.E.P Experiment (Accuracy of Ethereal Projections)

Ok, I emailed Math.com and told him about the experiment, as well as the problem I have been running into. He then refered me to this page, which answers all of my questions.

Basically the equation I need to use is this:

(n+5) x (n+4) x (n+3) x (n+2) x (n+1) / 120; where n = the number of dice being used.

To make sure this was right, I mapped out all of the combinations for 1, 2 and 3 dice by hand.

1 die = 6
2 dice = 21
3 dice = 56

I then used the equation to see if it came up with the same numbers, and sure enough it did.

Since the last post, i have had to turn my computer into the geek squad to get it fixed up, seeing as I only had about 2 weeks left on my extended warranty. Soo, ive been without the saltcube timer. Plus, ive been in California for five days, in which I had a good EP seperation but no dice box to test it (look in journal for more info).

I just wanted to let people know that this experiment is still on, and that soon (this friday) I can start it back up again. In the mean time ill be practicing, i suppose.

Why are you using dice? With only 6 sides, it's an unnecessary number of trials. You could just ask somebody to write down a number from one to a million, even on this forum. If you get it right when there was a 0.00001% probability, I'll believe you after one trial If you get it two or three times, we'll get you into a Popular Science magazine.

I'll even put a piece of paper with a number on my table at home and take a picture so you can see it, but black out the number in my picture.

2 digit figures (such as two dice) are unstable enough as it is, but a 6 digit number is a whole other story. Nevertheless, I do understand that using a large number could cut down on the number of trials, but I don't want to make the experiment so astronomical that it has the possibility of missing less astronimical yet relevent data, you know what I mean?

If you try to go too big too fast, you may not get a positive results even if there is something to the phenomenon.

Originally Posted by ethen

2 digit figures (such as two dice) are unstable enough as it is, but a 6 digit number is a whole other story. Nevertheless, I do understand that using a large number could cut down on the number of trials, but I don't want to make the experiment so astronomical that it has the possibility of missing less astronimical yet relevent data, you know what I mean?

If you try to go too big too fast, you may not get a positive results even if there is something to the phenomenon.

Yes, it will be difficult to remember the number.

Oh yeah. One annoyance ive noticed is that as soon as I try to internalize the number, it starts changing on me. There is no time to think really, you just have to see the number in one quick glance and remember what it was before it goes all morphy and weird on ya. Any number that is too long to see (and remember) in a single glance is going to cause some serious problems.

Originally Posted by ethen

If you try to go too big too fast, you may not get a positive results even if there is something to the phenomenon.

That's a good point that I never considered. I could argue that it should be relatively close to the number, but that may not be how the phenomenon works. Carry on

I agree. The trick, however, is how you quantify "near misses"

I’m back after a very long time. My LD/OBE efforts have been casual at best since I have left, having become preoccupied with life after college (graduation, working, getting married, etc) and I want to make a come back. My numbers of LD/OBEs have drastically dwindled since back in these days so I will most likely need to start from scratch.

In addition to looking over specifics (tips and tricks) regarding rhythmic napping and early morning method (which worked best for me back then), I will be continuing the experiment. I will still be using dice (or should I say, a cube). But as noted before, small details can get muddled during these out of body experiences so I have decided to use something less intricate than the small and closely-grouped dots found on dice.

Instead I will use distinct colors: Red, Blue, Yellow, Black, White...and I have yet to determine what the 6th side should be to create the most distinction (bright green?). I will be using just one cube at a time to keep things simple and will let you all know when i have the necessary materials.

Originally Posted by baufyafa

I could always do prelims with and without the top being closed, just to see if it has any effects. Its true, the last one of these types of experiments I did, I didn't have to move or "change" anything to see the object, but this time I do.

Originally Posted by ethen

...I could always do prelims with and without the top being closed, just to see if it has any effects. Its true, the last one of these types of experiments I did, I didn't have to move or "change" anything to see the object, but this time I do.

Anyway, I acquired the materials needed. I have a better setup than before. The container has a black base but otherwise it completely transparent which allows for good light. The die is a cube that has different colored sides: Neon Green, Neon Orange, Blue, Red, Black, and White. I had experimented with all sorts of combinations of neon and regular colors and this combo seems to produce the most contrast in both hue and value. Tonight, if I manage to LD/EP/leave my body and do the first trial successfully, tomorrow I will post the results.

Alright, so the serious trials will begin soon. I recently started a new work schedule that may give me a great opportunity to EP each day (in the daytime), whereas before I was simply trying to it at 4am. I will keep you posted with results (may take some time to get back into the stride of things)

As it turns out, I have been using this free time so far to do some Christmas shopping, went to the dentist today, and in general it seems to be a great time to get things done that simply need to get done as an adult living on earth.

But it's OK, because I have at least one whole day a week (where I can totally screw up my sleep schedule if I need to) to attempt to LD without it affecting my day to day life, nor cutting into my weekend playtime.

Seeing as there is a necessity to compromise here, giving myself a set day to try will not only allow me to get other things done, it will also keep me more motivated/focused as compared to thinking I can "just try again tomorrow..."

So, seeing as I will be doing these trials late Thursday night/ early Friday morning, each Friday afternoon check back for my results. I will post weekly here (even if it's the trial was a complete failure to LD).

OK, so I used the Lucidweaver timer last night/this morning in my attempts to project. The alarm was scheduled to go off 3 sleep cycles after going to bed, and then every 90 minutes thereafter, 3 alarms (one every 12 minutes) would go off so that I could Rhythmic Nap my way into several projections. The only problem was that my damn cell phone paused the application at some point during the night because of inactivity...which totally squandered this opportunity.

I'm actually very disappointed right now, I may try again tonight/tomorrow morning but I hate messing with my sleep schedule before having to go back to work for the week.

Wait... that doesn't make sense... your cell phone alarm has a repetitive sleep timer function that paused when it went inactive?

App fail?

Lucidweaver is an application I downloaded onto my phone that allows multiple alarms to be set in accordance to your rhythmic napping needs. I set this alarm to go off after my first 3 sleep cycles (about 270 minutes after I went to bed). It was then supposed to go off 3 separate times, 12 minutes apart, on the onset of each sleep cycle there after.

Here's what actually happened. I woke up around 6-7 am on my own. Naturally I was confused by the daylight I could see through my blinds because I was expecting to wake up around 3-4 am to the sound of an alarm. I walked over to my phone and it was in standby (the screen was no longer displaying). I got it active again and there was a message that said "the application has been suspended due to inactivity, do you wish to resume?"

So basically what seemed to have happened is that, because the phone was inactive for so long, it went into a sort of "hibernation" like a computer might if inactive long enough...and in the process it interrupted the alarm application.

I will most likely use the saltcube timer from here on out (from saltcube.com) seeing as it can do everything lucidweaver can (and more) but it will require the use of my computer which is less convenient that my cell phone.

Funny, seems as though you've made about as much progress in your attempts to prove OBEs as I have! Granted...I only tried a few times a few years ago, and gave up mostly out of frustration and a desire to do more interesting things with my LDs/OBEs than trying to read a playing card.

However, some things have changed...so I might be starting up my own experiment soon...though it will be quite different. I plan to involve other people, because usually I have trouble being convinced of something until another person can verify it. I'll post when I have the details smoothed out.

Yeah, I feel you. My best results with playing cards were with a very small sample size several years ago (more info found here)

This is basically what all the info came down to (I had some help crunching the numbers):

O.K. I did some analysis on your results)

Values of the cards (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,J,Q,K,A)
You got 3 hits out of 10 trails = 30% hits
Simply guessing should lead to 1 out 13 = 7.7% hits
First thought, not bad!
Symbols (hearts, spades…)
You got 2 out of 6 (4 times you did only guess the color) =33% hits
Simply guessing should lead to 1 out of 4 = 25% hits
First thought, not significant, but at least above 25%
Colors
You got 7 out of 10 = 70 % hits
Simply guessing should lead to 1 out of 2 = 50% hits
First thought, not significant, but at least above 50%

Comment
All probabilities are above the guessing values but only the first (values) seems significantly above the expected number, therefore I’ll look at this a bit more closely.
Value of the cards, how good is your result really? We can say something about this, if we look at the chance to guess your result by chance. On average, how many times will a computer score 3 or more hits if he tries to guess the values of 10 playing cards?
This is calculated as follows:
Probability to guess 0 out of 10 is (12/13)^10 = 45%
Probability to guess 1 out of 10 is (12/13)^9*(1/13)*10 = 37% (one needs to multiple by 10 because there are 10 different ways to score 1 hit and 9 misses out of 10 trails!)
Probability to guess 2 out of 10 is (12/13)^8*(1/13)^2 *45 = 14% (one needs to multiple by 45 because there are 45 different ways to score 2 hits and 8 misses out of 10 trails!)
This adds up to about 96% which means 96% of the time a computer would score 2 or less hits if he performs 10 trails, which means if one is guessing one will only score 3 or more hits in 4 % of the attempts, which means it is pretty likely you did not just guess the cards but perceive some info about the real cards while out of body.
The chance you did not leave you body is below 4%! That’s it! That’s the result! It’s a success, I would say!
But, 10 trails are way too few to say much anyway!

Cheers Tom

o.k. I'm know I'm crazy..........
I calculated the colors as well. 7 hits out of 10, doing this by chance will happen on 17,2% of the trails. The symbols can not be considered since the colors and the symvols are not independent Variables. The colors and the values(from above) can be multiplied though, since they are independent.
0.172*0.04=0.00688=0.688%
This means that there is a chance below 1% that you just guessed the cards!
If you want more prove, you need to do another 10 trails.......

Since then I have refined the process to elimnate the many variables involved with playing cards. Keep me posted if you start up again. I find this endeavor particularly interesting.

I enjoy tests like these. There are lots of experiments along these lines; they require thousands of trials (comparable to using thousands of dice!) in order to notice an effect, but the effect is statistically significant (which means the chances of getting as much accuracy as was gotten is abysmal). One of the better summaries of this I've encountered is in the book The Field by Lynne McTaggart. (Just bear in mind that McTaggart is a writer, not a researcher, and some of what she says or how she presents the information comes across as a little flaky.)

I think one core problem you're going to run into with this experiment is that what you're observing has too much symbolic linear meaning to it. I'm pretty sure the part of the brain that recognizes and appreciates abstract symbols is partially or entirely offline when the body is in a dreaming state (which I think holds just as true for OBEs based on LaBerge's assertion that they're just semi-lucid dreams). I think that's why reading is so difficult in dreams. But that's the very part of the brain you're trying to use in this experiment when you're going to a box and trying to count dots. The counting process - at least for numbers greater than three - is part of how our brains learned to develop higher-order linear structuring in the first place.

I therefore suggest that you make one of two adjustments.

One adjustment is to use some system that doesn't require you to count above three. Three is a magic number for human neurology; it's the largest quantity we can subitize from birth. Using something like large coins with a big dot on one side (for "one") and a big 'X' on the other (for "two") would make it so that your perceptions don't have to filter through the very part of your brain that's off during these excursions.

Of course, this means you'll have to change the math a little bit. What you're looking for is called a binomial distribution. It's actually much easier to compute the probability of getting the result you got (or something more extreme) after you get your results; otherwise you'll have to compute the entire distribution, which can be obnoxious. I can help you figure the math out if you like. (I used to teach binomial distributions in statistics classes.) The way using coins instead of dice will change the math is that you'll need more trials (i.e. some combination of more observations and more coins per observation) in order to get the same degree of certainty in your conclusion as you would get for dice. It's been a while, but I think it might work linearly: since dice have three times as many possibilities as coins, I think you might have to have three times as many trials.

The other option is to do something that matters to the part of the brain that is active. This basically means attending to something emotionally charged. For instance, you might try printing out several emotionally charged (for you) pictures, handing them to a friend, and asking him to choose by some random method (e.g. rolling a die) which one he'll tape up in some spot you think you can get to in your OBE. Since you'll have seen the pictures beforehand, you'll have a 1/n chance of guessing the right one where n is the number of pictures you've printed. (If you pick n=6, your math will be identical for these as for rolling dice.)

Another, more compelling option (which, incidentally, is an awful lot like the approaches done in the Maimonides dream telepathy experiments in the 1960s) is to find some way of not knowing what pictures are possible. That's harder to manage and it's close to impossible to compute realistic statistics on the probability of success, but success with an approach like that tends to be a lot more personally compelling.

Let us know how it goes! Good luck!

I agree with the counting issue. Actually I have already modified the experiment so that each side of the die has a different color (since, in my opinion, its easier to recognize contrasting colors as opposed to counting little dots).

One reason why I didn't go with trying to observe something I could not have known before hand is because its an "all or nothing" situation. For example, at one time I thought of having someone write a random 5 or 6 digit number on a piece of paper, and then allowing me to see if I can observe it accurately out of body.

But the odds are so steep that this sort of approach would most likely not "pick up" on less astronomical (but still very relevant) statistical anomalies. For example, if you do 100 dice trials and get a success rate of 35%, thats very relevant considering that on chance alone, someone should only be successful about 16% of the time. If you try to guess a 6 digit number, in order to get an equal success rate (35%) you would have to get the number right 1 time in 350,000 trials.

See what I mean?

Originally Posted by ethen

I agree with the counting issue. Actually I have already modified the experiment so that each side of the die has a different color (since, in my opinion, its easier to recognize contrasting colors as opposed to counting little dots).

One reason why I didn't go with trying to observe something I could not have known before hand is because its an "all or nothing" situation. For example, at one time I thought of having someone write a random 5 or 6 digit number on a piece of paper, and then allowing me to see if I can observe it accurately out of body.

But the odds are so steep that this sort of approach would most likely not "pick up" on less astronomical (but still very relevant) statistical anomalies. For example, if you do 100 dice trials and get a success rate of 35%, thats very relevant considering that on chance alone, someone should only be successful about 16% of the time. If you try to guess a 6 digit number, in order to get an equal success rate (35%) you would have to get the number right 1 time in 350,000 trials.

See what I mean?

Yes, I do.

If I might make a slightly more controversial suggestion, I think you might benefit from reviewing what research has already been done in this area. There are lots of people over the last century who have done exactly this kind of statistical analysis of a wide range of parapsychological effects, and they've generally concluded that the effects are definitely there. Although the effects tend to be fairly weak, many careful experimenters have run enough trials that they are actually more confident that certain forms of telekinesis exist than that Viagra gives erections.

I personally think that The Field by Lynne McTaggart gives one of the most readable summaries of this material. She gives references to various other works that she bases her claims on, so you can use that as a starting point.

Another good direction to dig into previous research on this is material on or by Ingo Swann. Swann interacted with many of the top parapsychologists of his day, so you can follow up on a number of kinds of experiments that way too.

The more modern research of Rupert Sheldrake is refreshingly skeptical, too. He gives a wonderful lecture on the Google campus that was originally supposed to run about a half-hour but ended up going for over an hour due to people's various questions and his remarkably lucid replies. (Often links to Google Video don't work, so if this hyperlink fails then go to video.google.com and search for "Sheldrake." The lecture is entitled "The Extended Mind.")

The reason I suggest this is so that you don't get stuck reinventing the wheel. Tests like what you're talking about have been done thousands upon thousands of times in very careful laboratory settings. I think you'll get more benefit from your efforts if you read a bit on the background of what you're trying to do. Even if past research doesn't convince you, at least it'll give you more context to understand how to frame your research so that you can make something personally convincing.

And, of course, if you find that you are convinced by previous research, then it might make more sense to try emotionally compelling tests. The emotional element of the human mind doesn't really process statistics at all well, so believing that, say, clairvoyance is real based on logical research would feel completely different than the experience of actually performing clairvoyance and later discovering that what you saw was accurate.

Now, all this said, even if you were to agree with the conclusions of the parapsychologists, this still doesn't say anything about the matter of ethereal projection. For instance, LaBerge mentions in various places (including EWoLD, I think) that he thinks that the OBE is actually a semi-lucid WILD. However, he also implies (or outright states; I don't recall which) that he acknowledges that people have validated perceptions in OBE states, which he attributes to dream telepathy (cf. Maimonides dream laboratory studies). Ockham's Razor suggests that an explanation like LaBerge's is more reasonable to adopt than a theory of etheric projection.

So, what would distinguish an etheric projection from dream telepathy? I'm really not sure. The only force I can think of that separates the two is death: telepathic dreams would end in oblivion upon death whereas the etheric body might continue on, at least for a while. But you couldn't use attempts to contact ghosts to test this possibility since there's no way to distinguish between a ghost and a dream character who acts as an agent for dream telepathy. Therefore, somehow you would have to die to use this as a testing method - say, by temporary brain death.

Hopefully you're more clever than I am! If you come up with something and decide to test it out, I'd love to hear it.

Why not just remote view the die instead of going to all the trouble of getting out-of-body and such?

Edit: Oh nvm re-checked thread title oops sry hehe

I am glad you mentioned that fact that this sort of test has already been done (The Stargate Project for example). It touches on a position I hold about the nature of evidence, and how it looses something essential when it goes from the first-hand experience (doing it yourself) to second-hand experience (reading/hearing about it being done).

I'm not trying to convince others of my findings, it's really more for me and my own enrichment. The reason why I post the findings is because I value the feedback I get, plus it could end up being a good read for the like-minded (if I ever get back into the grove again, that is).

As far as finding a way to distinguish between psychic dreams and the etheric plane...I think that would be rather hard to do without first being able to really pin down what the ethereal/etheric plane actually is. I used the term "ethereal" simply because, on the surface, it made reference to the type of "projection" I was interested in. In my experience, I have had what seems like two very distinct types of OBEs. One type is like a lucid dream, somewhat unstable and not significantly accurate/realistic in regard to the physical world. Then I have had another type of experience where, if it weren't for for that fact that I was conscious during separation, I wouldn't have been able to tell I wasn't awake.

The ladder type is the kind of OBE I am interested. For my purposes, I do not need to distingush between psychic dreams and the etheric plane, I am more interested in what that "plane" is capable of...regardless of what its true nature is.

I did another attempt, this time using my computer instead of my cell phone, and using a saltcube timer instead of lucidweaver. Unfortunately the same general issue occurred. At some point during the night, my computer...though plugged in, went into a hibernation mode pausing the timer. I did get it back going around 6 am, but I did not have any conscious transition from being awake to being asleep (which is the only kind of OBE I am looking for this experiment). I did have a DILD however. During this lucid dream I did not remember/was not aware of my original intentions involving the experiment, so naturally I did not redirect my lucid dream to trying to view the cube. This next Thursday night/Friday morning I will try again.

I did an attempt last saturday which did not result in a projection, mostly because of a cold I have had be coming down with for a few days before. The swollen throat glands and constant nasal drainage allowed for pretty poor conditions for trying to avoid the swallowing reflex.

I can't help but feel that something always seems to get in the way of my attempts.