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

Excellent, I can hardly wait to hear more.
Thanks again for this experiment!

Thank you for your interest! I usually do at least one series of attempts early Friday morning, and sometimes Saturday morning as well. So, usually it's about a week between attempts (and thus posts). Hope you can wait

Ok, I am going to need the help of the community in how I should handle this most recent trial of mine, because I honestly am not sure what the most scientific thing to do is in this situation.

I had an OBE this morning in which I was having trouble conjuring up the dreamscape. I could hardly see anything, similar to trying to see something in a dark room with your eyes half open. Nevertheless, I went up to the cube to look at it to the best of my ability and it appeared white-ish in color. I walked away to continue on with the rest of my OBE, but right around that time the dreamscape began to clear up quite a bit, so I decided to go back and look at the cube again. This time the cube was much more crisp (still not perfect), but it was clear enough to where I could see that the top side up was black, and even that it was red on an adjacent side. The only thing that seemed off was that there was some sort of writing on the black side of the cube, which in reality there is not.

After I woke up, I checked the cube and it was black side up. So that is the situation I found myself in this morning, and is most likely the reason why I did not have multiple OBEs because I was too preoccupied with trying to figure out what I should do. I will list some of the pro's and con's of each option.

__________________________________

Option 1: I go with white.

Pros: Usually your first impression seems to be the most accurate in these cases because over-thinking can actually alter the dreamscape itself, causing it to change to that which you are thinking about.

Cons: The quality was clearly lacking, so much so that in retrospect I am not sure if the color was white or possibly orange (the light I have shining on the cube at night has a yellowish-tint to it). In fact, the quality was bad enough for me to second guess my first observation mid-OBE.



Option 2: I go with black.

Pros: The quality of the OBE when I saw the black side up was significantly better than when I saw what seemed to be the white side up. In fact, one thing to consider is that, consistent with the OBE, the real cube did have an adjacent side showing that was red.

Cons: This was not the "initial observation" that I have found produces the most reliable results with previous experiments of this nature. Also, I am concerned that the fact that the cube turned out to be black may be unconsciously affecting my opinion of which observation seemed more "dependable"...given that I now know the cube was actually black. If the cube turned out to have been white side up, my personal opinion of which observation was more reliable would surely be at least a little different than it is now. And as a side note, there was writing on the black face of the cube even though the real cube does not have this, which calls the accuracy of the observation under question.


Option 3: I discard the trial all together.

Pros: This will ensure that I do not include a false positive or false negative in my results, given that I did see two different things during the OBE and there does not seem to be a very objective way to determining which one to go with.

Cons: It's very important that I include all misses as "misses" and all successes as "successes" in my results. Omitting results, regardless of the outcome, jeopardizes the accuracy of the over all results to an equal degree that including a false positive/negative can do.


Option 4: I go with both black and white, and figure the difference in odds .

Pros: Coming from a purely mathematical point of view, If I do it correctly it won‘t matter that there were two colors since the probabilities would accurately account for this fact.

Cons: Last time I tried to do this my math was wrong and I came up with inaccurate probabilities. Each trial is only supposed to have one observed color per OBE, and allowing for this variable to change arbitrarily might cause inconsistency within the data unless I am very careful about how I go about it.


What do you all think I should do?

I dont know what you should do.

Just wanted to say that this experiment seems very interesting, im looking forward to seeing the results.

I'm sorry if this isn't much help, but my gut instinct would be to go with Option 2 because it was the clearer of the two times you saw the cube (and because you saw the adjacent red side).

Again, lack of experience here, but the mind works in funny ways, and I'd be willing to disregard the writing.

However, this is also why I'm no scientist

Why don't you just ask someone to place a random photography at some place? You can't guess that and it would only take one try.

The reason why I do not do this is because, at this point, I do not want to expect too much and risk overlooking notable (but less dramatic) results.

Imagine the subject was golf, and the goal was to find out how accurately you can hit a golf ball at 300 yards. You do not want to make your benchmark for a accurate "hit" a hole-in-one, and anything less than that a complete failure (especially if you are not even sure about just how accurately a ball can be hit in the first place). Similarly, you do not want to make your OBE target something so obscure that even getting once is a phenomenal feat...at least not at this point.

Should it turn out that I am getting the color right 99% of the time instead of the expected ~16%, maybe I will go that route. But for now I do not want to let any anomaly slip through the cracks.

Personally, I'd also stick with option 2. The red side being there kind of seals the deal for me. Sure enough, information gets distorted in OBEs, and while the scientist in you probably wouldn't like it, it's quite possible that at some point in the future you're going to have to look twice again. And while it can be an unwanted variable, you can smooth that fact out by, from now on, always sticking with the prediction that subjectively seems clearest to you. Even if you check the die 5 times during one OBE. Sure, considering the initial format of the experiment, it's probably best to avoid looking many times, though. For the sake of consistency.

Then again, skeptics will always and undoubtedly find something to nag about. Even if you carry out your experiment in the most rigorous manner. So it really boils down to what you yourself want this experiment to mean, and how you personally will be satisfied with it. Other people will always have a choice, whether to believe your results and conclusions or not.


At least for me, this ongoing experiment, alongside my own experiences, has already revealed a lot.

If it were up to which observation I personally felt was more reliable, I would go with option 2. However, I already had the preconceived notion that the initial "gut-instinct" observation was the most true based on my previous experiences. If the cube had turned out to be white-side up, that would have only reaffirmed this notion, and I fear would have altered my opinion the other way. I can imagine it now, me going off about how I knew the first observation was the truest, despite the second observation seeming to be clearer...and how the writing on the black side should have given it away.

With these things considered, I believe the most reasonable thing to do is option 3. What sucks is that, despite my opinion possibly being altered by knowing the outcome before making a final decision, the truth is that the second observation was much clearer, enough to where I most likely would have chosen black if I had made a decision before knowing the real color.

What it boils down to is that I should have decided which observation to go with before I knew what the real color was...and this was my mistake. You are right though, there will most likely be situations where I have to look more than once, or look for an extended period of time. Should there be some sort of discrepancy in the observed color, I need to be able to work this out somehow. From now on, when this happens I will choose before I know the real color, and even if I chose "wrongly" I will stick with that choise. To help ensure this happens less frequently however, I am not going to even look at the cube until the OBE is sufficiently clear, even if it means spending the whole OBE trying to clarify everything only to wake up.

That sounds reasonable

Sorry but this just isn't possible, your wasting your time.

Better yet why not try lottery numbers. This way on the odd chance that you happen to be right you'll make a killing in the process.

^ignoring the above post ...I think you should discard this trial. There seems to be too much in question...I don't think you could ever stand behind it as being truly valid, therefore it would be best to discard. Also surely wouldn't hold up well in an argument. A spot on match should not be questionable like this.

I'd just like to add that I appreciate you doing this experiment. I wish I had time to do something similar. I eagerly await your results.

Sorry I haven't responded in a couple of weeks, had a family emergency that is just now starting to settle down. I have made 4-5 serious attempts in the mean time but haven't managed to have another OBE, most likely because of the stress.

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

Sorry but this just isn't possible, your wasting your time.

Well when you put it that way, who needs the scientific method when we have you around!!

In all seriousness though, I wouldn't expect your average person to be open to the idea. And this is especially true if they have not experienced an OBE of their own that was in some way more accurate than a simple lucid dream ought to be (given what we currently think we know about dreaming/OBEs/etc.)

I, on the other hand, have experienced unexpectedly accurate OBEs on multiple occasions...which is why I suppose I am more open to the possibility that there could be something "real" to this. And if it weren't for the fact that I have already tried this experiment once before with playing cards (and was able to produce mathematically significant results) then perhaps I would have seen your response as being less ignorant than is actual is.

The truth is that, even if your assumptions are ultimately right and that there are no extra-sensory qualities to OBEs, without subjecting something of this nature to the rigors of the scientific method, you can't really take a hard stance either way without that stance being primarily "crap".

P.S. If you would like more info about this previous experiment, I'd be happy to share the data with you. Let me know.

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

Better yet why not try lottery numbers. This way on the odd chance that you happen to be right you'll make a killing in the process.

I have actually already tried this . I never had any successful enough OBEs to give me a full set of numbers I could then take to the store and get a ticket with, but this is what I did in a nut shell: I video taped a Powerball drawing and my intentions were to have an OBE, and while in it, watch my recording and take note of the numbers I saw....and then use those numbers to get a Powerball ticket.

However, as I have already discussed multiple times in this thread already, it is not wise to make your "benchmark" something so astronomically unlikely that you risk "missing" less astronomical (but still relevant) results.

Well look. I'm just saying there is a reason scientists do scientific studies. If there was any scientific basis to this at all don't you think people would care? I find it hard to believe people just leave something with such huge scientific and philosophical implications like these to physics (wow, is the plural of physic really physics?) and forums. Things like this don't just go unnoticed.

Besides, being skeptical is not being closed minded.

About the data, I really don't care becuase you have no way of proving it to me. Logically I can only assume the results have been fabricated. However, if you can devise a test in which the results are unfalsifiable, I will be happy to participate. The lottery would be a good example of this.

SystemsLock. I think the real problem is not whether or not you consider the experiment to be 'scientific'. You came to this thread and read the original post and have an idea of what is happening. You are free to have an opinion, but I see no reason to attempt to dissuade someone who is attempting to find truth and statistics in an area that typically does not have such.

It's fine to be a skeptic, but I just can't understand why you feel the intense desire to say something that will do nothing but discourage someone. Perhaps if this were being published in a scientific journal, then skepticism is a necessity.

I don't know, I feel like I'm repeating myself in this post. I guess I'm trying to say you may be inadvertently acting like a troll. Like someone who finds a thread about basketball so they can say that they prefer soccer.

<-- I'm new... so I just felt like putting this cool icon on.

Alright fine, run your study. If you are in fact conducting the study properly then I am quite sure you will find your predictions false. If your not then I suppose only you will know.

And hey! Where would us trolls go without the internet? Stomping on peoples faith is what we do.

I will apologize in advance because you happened to have caught me on a bad day and that is not your fault, but nevertheless some of the things I am about to post may come off as brash.

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

Well look. I'm just saying there is a reason scientists do scientific studies.

Indeed, which is why I am even doing the experiment. I respect the scientific method enough to apply this phenomenon (which I personally find curious) to see if there is anything real to it. I'd expect any logical person to do this before coming to a conclusion either way about the nature of what's happening.

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

If there was any scientific basis to this at all don't you think people would care? I find it hard to believe people just leave something with such huge scientific and philosophical implications like these to physics (wow, is the plural of physic really physics?) and forums. Things like this don't just go unnoticed.

You could have said the same thing about any major scientific discovery in history before it had been sufficiently substantiated. You speak almost as if science has already discovered everything there is to find...

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

Besides, being skeptical is not being closed minded.

True, but being completely closed off to an idea without sufficient reason is the definition of being closed-minded. At some point in history, even today's most fundamental truths used to have no evidence in their favor. It is because of the people who decided that they would "give it a go anyway" that have made science what it is today, or do you need an extensive history lesson?

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

About the data, I really don't care becuase you have no way of proving it to me. Logically I can only assume the results have been fabricated.

On the contrary, the logical part of you should have accepted the evidence for what it is: a written testimony of a person you do not know which may or may not be fabricated. Granted I know I am not what is considered a credible source...tell me, despite that fact, how is blindly disregarding what could be relevant data not being closed minded? Have you even reviewed the data you are dismissing as fabricated or did you simply do it as soon as the data began to challenge your preconceptions of what is and isn't possible?

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

However, if you can devise a test in which the results are unfalsifiable, I will be happy to participate. The lottery would be a good example of this.

Look, if my goal was to "fool the world" into believing something I already knew was not true, I am intelligent enough to know that going about it on an internet forum (and offering no other evidence to back me up) would be a complete waste of time...seeing as this thread has next-to-zero scientific merit to it.

This is why I said :

Originally Posted by ethen

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...

However, should I produce good enough results with my own tests, then I would definitely consider approaching an accredited facility to have them document and publish the findings. But I don't see the point in doing this before I have even proven it to myself that what is happening isn't simply luck or coincidence, wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

If you are in fact conducting the study properly then I am quite sure you will find your predictions false.

Really? I am interested in hearing about how exactly you are so sure, specifically. I really hope you are not like most "Armchair Scientists"...These people seem to think that they are so scientifically intuitive that they have no need to actually adhere to the scientific method before making scientific claims. These people also seem to think that they somehow magically "inherit" the established credibility of the scientific community (and the right to speak on their behalf) because they can use Google to look things up. And the funniest part about it is that, unless these “Armchair Scientists” are the most accomplished and intelligent scientists that has ever lived…which they are not… 99% of the science these people uphold as truth is science that they have taken purely on faith... faith in those they do not know, doing things they do not understand, and coming to conclusions that they accept without any evidence of their own justifying why they are accepting them.

In all honestly, I admit that I have faith in the scientific community, but what sets me apart is my awareness that it is indeed faith. I have never looked at water with an electron microscope to verify that it is actually composed of H2O, nor have I been able to deduce that conclusion from a series of chemical experiments. Do I believe water is H2O? Yes, but I am cognizant enough to know that, because I haven’t verified it for myself, water being H2O isn’t really something I can consider “knowledge”. Rather, it’s much closer to memorization than anything else. For all I know it’s H3O

SOoooo…if you are an "armchair scientist" then you might as well just walk away while you still have your dignity intact. I have very little patience for those who think they are being more scientific than they actually are and I am more than happy to make it very, very apparent to everyone reading.[/rant]

Ethen, I just want to say that while I think you have little to no chance of persuading SystemsLock of anything, I think your explanation is superb. Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts so eloquently!

Alright, you make a good argument. I suppose I was stereotyping you and I'll stop challenging the merit of the study. Perhaps I'm lacking an antiquate biological explanation of the phenomenon. I'm not exactly open-minded enough to believe that things such as this would develop simply becuase we want them to. I will however be sure to read whatever results you produce.

I must say, I am shocked (in a good way) by the caliber of your response. Here I am dissecting your response without any regards... and instead of putting up a wall, or even escalating the situation, you simply took the feedback for what it was worth and did so with maturity and composure.

It's quite refreshing, really. That sort of virtue in a person is hard to come by, and not just around here but anywhere unfortunately. I almost forgot what it was like

Moving on, I have had a dry spell since my last set of trials (for anyone who was wondering what happened to the experiment...) but the weekend is near so I'll be looking forward to then. Keep an eye out.

You're doing well. Keep it up!

Spoiler for Translation:

Get on with it. Some of us are interested in your results and you're taking too damn long.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Get on with it. Some of us are interested in your results and you're taking too damn long.

Patience.

I look forward to reading more ethan...and can definitely sympathize with dry spells. Good luck.

In the mean time, here is a pic of the two setups I currently have.



The large setup on the left I actually haven't used yet because the dry spell started just before I could. I made this out of a glass bowl and taped cardboard to the bottom (clearly spared no expense with the making of this). I made this because I figured that the larger the cube is, the less it will be distorted by the nature of an OBE.

The small setup on the right is the original setup I have used to produce the results I currently have. Both cubes have the same colors on them (Red, Black, White, Neon Orange, Neon Green, and Blue). As you can see, with this one I used a light lavender backdrop to help contrast the cube from what it was sitting on, where as I used just the natural color of the cardboard for the larger one. From the looks of this picture, I am wondering if I should make the larger one also have that same shade of color...In real life the difference in contrasting quality is not as drastic as this picture makes it out to be.

I put the setup in the kitchen where I can keep it lit 24/7 without interfering with our sleep (don't want to deprive the wifey of her sleep...hell hath no fury and etc.) I moved it from the stove where it used to be because this light, though garish, is brighter and whiter. The other light was more yellowish and distorted what the colors looked like in the otherwise dim lighting. I am not sure if that will make any difference when it comes to the OBEs, but might as well do as much as I can to set myself up with success.

So I was able to get a good trial in. I had one WBTB followed by 3-4 DEILDs. The first one did not produce a good observation of the cube (couldn't tell if it was black or blue) so I ended up discarding that trial.

I had a second LD not long after the first. It looked green (again...lol). But, even though it was clear enough to where I could see the color, it was not as good quality as I wanted it. The place I was in seemed similar to my apartment but was definiately not my apartment. I decided to enjoy the rest of this LD with a little bit of exploration, sex, etc. On an unrelated note, there is nothing more frustrating that waking up before being able to climax...and this happens every time to me I try to "get some" in an LD. I don't even know why I still try

The 3rd LD was more stable, still not the correct apartment but when I looked at the cube it was clearer and it was green again. I took this as a confirmation of the previous LD. I woke up and checked the actual cube, but it was white side up. Around this time it was starting to get light out, and so I decided to use the rest of the morning's LDs for recreation.

Summary

Trial 1:
OBE = Green, Real = Black

Trial 2:
OBE = Green, Real = Green

Trial 3:
OBE = Green, Real = White

Probabilistically expected success rate: 1/6 (16.67%)
Actual success rate thus far: 1/3 (33.33%)

Comments: Not horrible, but I am a little disappointed in myself for being so impatient with looking at the cube. I think, like before, coming off of a dry spell I did not want to miss my opportunity to get some more data. Never the less, I am still above the benchmark. The best thing that came out of today was that I think I figured out why I was not having any lucid dreams recently.

When I first started getting results, I was waking up around 4am am staying up a full hour before going back to bed. After a while that hour tuned into 30 minutes, and sometimes I didn't even get out of bed. This morning I made myself stay up the full hour and, sure enough, I had a series of lucid dreams. So in the end I am not too disappointed. If LD's come easier I can then afford to be more strict about the one's I use.