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

I am designing an experiment, its purpose to examine if I, as an individual, am able to accurately perceive an object by means other than my five physical senses. Therefore in this experiment I will be perceiving an object via “out-of-body experiences”, more specifically “Ethereal Projections”.

There will be a total of 12 trials, and each trial will consist of the following routine:

1.) I will place a single die in a small wooden box, and then latch the lid shut.

2.) I will then proceed to shake the box for five (5) consecutive seconds, allowing the die to settle on an unknown value between 1 and 6.

3.) I will place the box on the windowsill next to my bed and proceed to induce an OBE.

4.) While out of body, I will open the box and “look” at the value of the die.

5.) After coming to, and without picking up or otherwise moving the box, I will open it and note the actual value of the die.

6.) I will then record the data here and in my journal.

7.) I shall repeat this sequence of steps until all 12 trials have been completed

8.) After step 7 is satisfied, I will then calculate the overall probabilities of my results

Assuming the law of probability, ideally 12 trials should produce 2 “hits” simply by chance (1/6 x 12 trials = 2 matches, where 1/6 equals the probability of matching a number by chance). Thus, should my findings produce significantly more matches (or “hits”) than 2, the experiment would suggest the existence of some sort of sensory perception other than that which can be accounted for by the five senses currently recognized by the scientific community.


I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself, but should this experiment go smoothly, I expect that I will repeat it to ensure more reliable results. For supplementary information, click here

You may have a problem to see it because it's dark inside the box. Better open the cover after you shake the box ( maybe while you wear a mask to hide all sight ) and put it in a location where you can't see which number it is unless you go over to it and look from above.

Well, I was going to open the box while out of body. Perhaps I should do a few preliminary trials so that I dont run into any unexpected problems mid-experiment.

Also, I think I am going to do a few of this preliminary runs and see how many dice would be the most effective, instead of just using one. Ideally I could do 6 dice per trial, but remembering a 6-digit number while out of body may be too difficult. I think ill do the following:

Prelim 1.) 1 die

Prelim 2.) 2 dice

Prelim 3.) 3 dice

Prelim 4.) 4 dice

Prelim 5.) 6 dice

not only to see how many dice I can effectively use per trial, but also for a little practice before the real thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ethen

Well, I was going to open the box while out of body. Perhaps I should do a few preliminary trials so that I dont run into any unexpected problems mid-experiment.

---

well, you can't "physically" open the box while OOB because your hands will go through it.
Maybe you can paranormally see into the box, but it will still be dark. In any case I think you are adding here an unnecessary difficulty by keeping the box closed.

Perhaps. 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 didnt have to move or "change" anything to see the object, but this time I do.

You could just use a box with one transparent side (glass or plastic foil) and shake it at an angle where you can't see the dice. You could then leave it on the floor or on a table next to a light source so you can se clearly.

I bought the box at a hobby store for a buck, but when I was there I saw a few boxes that had one tranparent side, also for a buck. Maybe it would be worth buying one, what do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ethen

I bought the box at a hobby store for a buck, but when I was there I saw a few boxes that had one tranparent side, also for a buck. Maybe it would be worth buying one, what do you think?

---

Sure, or just open the cover after the shaking while your eyes are shut, and then you can save a buck.

enough with your '' rationality ''



























kidding. I suppose that would work fine. But still, it would be nice to have such a box for this experiment...plus its only dollar for a professional grade ethereal-projection-dice-box :D

I think it's a good idea to buy the one with the transparent side, it's just 1 buck and you won't have to be looking away while you uncover the box and put a lamp over it. Plus it's a more professional attitude towards your experiment.

I see that one of the problems your experiment has is that it is possible for you to guess correctly out of luck. How about if there was no way you could know what was behind the card? Just get a friend to draw a simple figure on a piece of paper and stick it on a window like you did with cards on your last experiment. That way, even if what you see while in OBE is fluid/ unstable there is no way you could have guessed out of luck.

I have never had an OBE, so I can't experiment on my own, but I look forward to your results.

So I did go buy that box yesterday. I also changed a few things about the experiment to better suit this new way of seeing the dice. First, I moved the location of the box from my windowsill to a shelf next to a lamp (its one of those tall one's with three individual lamps on it). I replaced one of the bulbs with a 7.5 watt night-light bulb, which then lights up the box at night without keeping me awake.

Early this morning I once again attempted to do a few preliminary runs, which I’m glad I did because I ran into a few problems. I ended up having two lucid dreams instead of OBEs, but both involved doing this experiment. After setting up the box and everything, I set the saltcube timer and went to bed. In the first lucid dream I had, I went to the box to see what number was on the die. It looked like a 2, but it was rather unstable and the more I tried to focus on it, the more unstable it became, and as a result, the more it looked like a 3. Any who, the actual number was a 4, which didn’t surprise me because it wasn’t until I had awoken that I noticed that in the dream, the box was out in the hall way instead of in my room and on the shelf. Clearly I didn’t attain a sufficient level of lucidity to do the experiment properly.

I wrote down the results, put in another die (making it two dice in the box), shook the box up, and went back to bed. Like the first, the second lucid dream I had wasn't as clear or "whole" as I wanted it to be. In the dream I looked in the box and saw a 6. I woke up and the number was a 6, but then I got into a fight with my fiancé about some nonsense when I realized that I had just experienced a false awakening, and was still dreaming. I then woke up for real, went over to the box to find a 3 and a 6. Again, though I got one number right, I wasn’t lucid enough to remember that I put two dice in instead of one.

Conclusion, I need more practice before moving on to the actual experiment.


thafrenchman, on one had I know what you’re saying about making the picture something I can't get right by chance... but on the other hand I know that I don't need such drastic measures to produce reliable results. One of the benefits of using dice is that, unlike what you propose, the odds can be calculated because there are actual numeric values being worked with. This basically means that I can quantify my results using dice, which is very important.

And even though I could get a few numbers right by luck, in the long run (over the span of numerous trials), it will become clear whether my results can be explained by chance alone, or if they suggest something more. 1/6 is the probability of getting a number right by chance, meaning that for every 6 trials (where only one die is being used per trial), odds are that I should get roughly 1 right by chance alone. Of course, I could get more or less than that right in only six trials, but if I do many more trials, my results should average out to be about 1 success out of every 6 trials...unless there is something else going on.

This is why I want to use as many dice as I can manage per trial. If I used two dice instead of one, Ill have twice the data to work with. Or, if I could use 6 dice at a time, I would have the same amount of data to work with in only 2 trials, as I would with 12 single-die trials. Hell, the box can hold 9 dice, it would be ideal if I could take advantage of that so that I don't have to have hundreds of OBEs to get credible results.

I’m aiming for 120 individual sets of data, which could either be 120 single-die trials, 60 2-dice trials, 40 3-dice trials, 30 4-dice trials, 20 6-dice trials, etc. But first I need to know how many dice I can manage at a time, which is why I’m doing the preliminary trials.

I dunno...I think you're overcomplicating things a tad. I tried to do something similar to this at one point with a deck of cards. I would scatter a deck of cards across my bedside table and without looking...flip one of the cards face up. Then I would lay down to take a nap...in which I usually always find myself WILDing and what I thought was APing. So...all I would have to do in my AP or OBE or whatever, would be to raise my head up and look over at the table and remember what card is face up. Then when I woke from the AP I would write down whatever card I saw...then look at my table to check and see if I was correct.

I was never able to successfully complete the experiment. But I only tried a few times before giving up. Reading your last reply...I experienced the same or similar problems which is what deterred me from continuing the experiment. At times I found my head too heavy to even lift from my pillow to look at the card. Other times...I was not able to fully turn my neck. When I was able to move sufficiently, the cards weren't even there. Each time was more of a lucid dream/FA and definitely not an AP. Though I'm not really certain there is a difference between the three.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aquanina

I dunno...I think you're overcomplicating things a tad. I tried to do something similar to this at one point with a deck of cards. I would scatter a deck of cards across my bedside table and without looking...flip one of the cards face up. Then I would lay down to take a nap...in which I usually always find myself WILDing and what I thought was APing. So...all I would have to do in my AP or OBE or whatever, would be to raise my head up and look over at the table and remember what card is face up.

---

The problem with this, is that you can never be sure that you didn't raise your head, see the card, and fall aleep again without remembering that you rose, and after you wake up, you may know the card face subconsciously.

BTW, here is an article about OOB study that I found very interesting: http://www.paradigm-sys.com/ctt_articles2.cfm?id=50

You're right ethen, the picture thing is not really necessary, and I see you've got the whole probability thing with the dice under control. Good luck with your experiment, I'm curious to see your results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dodobird

The problem with this, is that you can never be sure that you didn't raise your head, see the card, and fall aleep again without remembering that you rose, and after you wake up, you may know the card face subconsciously.

---

Wait what? Sorry but I don't do weird things like that in my sleep lol. As long as you're honest in your experiment, and of course you will want to be, because this would provide proof that you are actually APing then I don't see "cheating" whether conscious or subconscious an issue.

And I don't know much about probability & stats and all that, but I would think that the more dice you put in the box, the higher the probability of guessing the correct numbers. For example, you had a 3 and a 6...and you remember seeing a 6. Ok...but you only remembered one number so your chance of guessing right actually doubled. Right? *confused*

Hey Ethen,

I'm glad I came across your post - your idea might be ok for working on Astral Projecting, however I think it's an even better system for experimenting with quantum physics and remote viewing.

I've been wanting to do such remote viewing experiments before but most require two people, a reader and an interviewer. I won't go into the details of how it all works, but it basically comes down to this: no outcome is ever definite untill it is observed. Meaning, when you put a die in a box and shake it, the number that die lands on is releveant to the moment you open the box. Up untill that moment, the side the die lands on is still undefined. So, if you shake the box and leave it closed, then concentrate on a particular number, you would be able to effect the outcome of the die once you open the box to chek the answer. That's right, your intent could go back in time and effect the die just moments before it landed back when you first shook the box!!

Sounds pretty whacky- but tests such as this are being done on a large scale, with hundreds, even thousands of people from across the globe joining in experiments. Your idea seems like a perfect way to practice without having to ask someone (who might think you're nuts) for help!

Now I gotta go shopping for some containers and dice :wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aquanina

I dunno...I think you're overcomplicating things a tad. I tried to do something similar to this at one point with a deck of cards. I would scatter a deck of cards across my bedside table and without looking...flip one of the cards face up. Then I would lay down to take a nap...in which I usually always find myself WILDing and what I thought was APing. So...all I would have to do in my AP or OBE or whatever, would be to raise my head up and look over at the table and remember what card is face up. Then when I woke from the AP I would write down whatever card I saw...then look at my table to check and see if I was correct.

I was never able to successfully complete the experiment. But I only tried a few times before giving up. Reading your last reply...I experienced the same or similar problems which is what deterred me from continuing the experiment. At times I found my head too heavy to even lift from my pillow to look at the card. Other times...I was not able to fully turn my neck. When I was able to move sufficiently, the cards weren't even there. Each time was more of a lucid dream/FA and definitely not an AP. Though I'm not really certain there is a difference between the three.

---

I did a similar experiment 2 years ago. I copy/pasted the information I gathered from it in my journal. You can a find a link to it at the end of my first post in this thread. I know such things are complicated. I even tried to work out a point system to better quantify the likelihood of some cards being mistaken for other cards (based on how similar they look to each other), but to no avail. This is one reason why I decided to work with dice instead of cards. Less variables to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aquanina

And I don't know much about probability & stats and all that, but I would think that the more dice you put in the box, the higher the probability of guessing the correct numbers. For example, you had a 3 and a 6...and you remember seeing a 6. Ok...but you only remembered one number so your chance of guessing right actually doubled. Right? *confused*

---

Yes, the odds of doing so would be 2/6, or roughly 33.33% chance that such a result was coincidence alone. Of course, I wasn't nearly as lucid as I needed to have been during that specific round because I didn’t even remember that there were two dice in the box...so I'm not really interested in the results I have gotten so far.

But back to the probabilities. You are right, having two dice in the box and only guessing one value is a 2/6 probability of success; seeing as you have two 1 out of 6 chances to be correct (1 per die).

But things change when you have two dice in the box, and you attempt to get both numbers correct. You technically have 36 different combinations the dice could be, assuming that you take order into account. Doing so would mean that you would have to differentiate results like "5 and 1" from "1 and 5", seeing as the order of the numbers are different. But given the nature of the experiment, I can not differentiate such results because the dice aren’t going to be in any sort of an order after shaking the box. Plus I have no way to differentiate one die from another. Thus, since order is not going to be considered, the following equation is used to calculate the probabilities:

x/6y

“x” = the number of values you observe (while out of body)
“y” = the number of dice you actually use


In the event of a discrepancy between the number of dice observed and the number of dice in the box, I could still use this equation to calculate valid probabilities with valid implications. However, I assume such discrepancies could only arise from being insufficiently lucid. So for the sake of simplicity, and at the risk of ignoring potentially insightful data, I feel that I should only take into account trials where there is no discrepancy between the number of dice observed, and the number of dice being used.

Do you think that this is a good or bad idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

Hey Ethen,

I'm glad I came across your post - your idea might be ok for working on Astral Projecting, however I think it's an even better system for experimenting with quantum physics and remote viewing.

I've been wanting to do such remote viewing experiments before but most require two people, a reader and an interviewer. I won't go into the details of how it all works, but it basically comes down to this: no outcome is ever definite untill it is observed. Meaning, when you put a die in a box and shake it, the number that die lands on is releveant to the moment you open the box. Up untill that moment, the side the die lands on is still undefined. So, if you shake the box and leave it closed, then concentrate on a particular number, you would be able to effect the outcome of the die once you open the box to chek the answer. That's right, your intent could go back in time and effect the die just moments before it landed back when you first shook the box!!

Sounds pretty whacky- but tests such as this are being done on a large scale, with hundreds, even thousands of people from across the globe joining in experiments. Your idea seems like a perfect way to practice without having to ask someone (who might think you're nuts) for help!

Now I gotta go shopping for some containers and dice :wtf:

---

I was under the impression that the observer effect only seems to happen on the quantum level. If im not mistaken, that theory falls apart as soon as it comes to any level of reality beyond the quantum level (as in the sub-molecular level, the molecular level, and so forth all the way upto macro levels of reality). But im no expert, maybe im wrong.

Hmm...what if you colored the dice?

It could seriously cut down on the number of trials I would have to do, thats for sure. Anyway, Im having second thoughts about my math. Im not so sure that the x/6y is the correct equation. Im going to have get back to you all after I figure out if my math is right :P

I think the more simple you can make it the better. But I absolutely fail at math, so sorry I can't be of more help. Good luck. ^_^

I figured it out, Its factorials. I need to use the equation 6^x/x!, where x= the number of dice being used. You see, 6^x equals the total number of possible value-combinations given the number of dice I use. But since my dice are all identical to one another, I cannot take into account the different premutations (or unique combinations) that the values coould appear in. So, I have to first figure out how many different permutations there are, given the number of dice I use. Thats what the "x!" equals. If I have 4 dice, then 4! = 4 x 3 x 2 x 1, or 24 different unique combinations (permutations) that the 4 values could appear in. But to remove that from the equation, i simply have to divide the total number of possible value-combinations by the number of possible permutations, and what I have left is the probability of my results!


*sigh* I am relieved.

[edit] actually i dont think thats right either....$%^#!

lmao, OK...i have it for real this time


I was on the right track, but I got a bit impatient as soon as I discovered the permutation thing. You don't "simply" divide one number by the other. You see, no matter how many dice you use, you will always ALWAYS have only 6 value-combinations that cannot be rearranged in any other way. If you are using two dice, they are 11, 22, 33, 44, 55, 66. If you are using three dice, they are 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, etc. As you can see, there is only one order those numbers can be in. But for all other number combinations, there more than one way to arrange them. There are x! amount of ways to be exact. For example, if you have two dice and you numbers are 1 and 2, then you can arrange as 12 or 21 (2! = 2 x 1 = 2 ways to arrange them). If you have three dice and your numbers are 1, 2, and 3, then you can arrange them as 123 132 213 231 312 321 (3! = 3 x 2 x 1 = 6 ways to arrange them).

Blah blah blah the correct equation is ((6^x - 6)/x!) + 6. 6^x equals how many total possible value combinations there are, taking order (different permutations) into account. You subtract 6 because 6 of those combinations cannot be arranged in any other way. This will give you how many total *rearrageable combinations* remain. You then divide that value by the number of permutations each other combination can be rearranged by (x!). This will give you how many different combinations there are, taking into account that order (or different permutations of the same number) no longer matters. You then add the 6 un-rearrangeable number combinations back into the total value and what you have left is the number of possible outcomes, regardless of permutations.

Thank you and good night *falls on face

*rasies self up off face

Quote:

---

There are x! amount of ways to be exact.

---

dear god, I just realized that is only accurate when we are talking about two or less dice. When there are talking about three or more, a more sophicated equation is needed.


Someone shoot me.

What if you use a multi-sided die?

I take it you mean a die with more than 6 sides?

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.


:banana:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :cool:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

:shock:

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.

:mad:

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):

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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 :P

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.

Finally.

Early this morning I had 4 OBEs, 2 of which were of sufficient quality for the experiment. I woke up around 4:00 am, fell back asleep, and then woke up again around 5:20 am. I then stayed awake for maybe 30 minutes and went back to bed for the first attempt.

Like usual, when I first separated I could not see anything, but I used my sense of touch to help conjure up the rest of the dreamscape. Considering it had been a while since having this sort of OBE, I was a little excited. I rushed into the kitchen where the cube was located as the dreamscape was still manifesting and saw that it was green side up. A few minutes later after the OBE had finished, I checked the real cube, but it was black side up.

My second OBE of the morning went just as fast as it came. The dreamscape wasn't even my apartment, and before I could successfully "relocate" myself, it had ended.

My third OBE was a very interesting one. It started off as being some what unstable, a little too unstable for the needs of this experiment. Nevertheless, I used the opportunity to investigate the dreamscape. The cube was blue on all sides, but then started shifting colors before my eyes (pretty cool looking actually). I then began looking at other small details and how they would fluctuate. I picked up a postcard sized piece of paper to read what was on it, and the word "Greeen" (yes, three E's) formulated from what otherwise was a nonsensical string of letters. The OBE then ended.

Despite having seen the cube in the previous OBE, for the reasons already explained, I did not consider it a valid trial and did not check to see what color was facing up on the real cube. The fourth and final OBE I saw that, yet again, the cube was green side up. Though I was a little hesitant about the cube being green again, the OBE seemed to be of reliable enough quality. When I woke up and checked the cube, sure enough it was green side up.

Summary

Trial 1:
OBE = Green, Real = Black

Trial 2:
OBE = Green, Real = Green

Probabilistically expected success rate: 1/6 (16.67%)
Actual success rate thus far: 1/2 (50.00%)

Comments: Not a bad start.

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. :P

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 :roll: ...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.

Quote:

---

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!! :banana:

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.

Quote:

---

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 :P. 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.

:banana: <-- 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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 :

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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 :cheeky:

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 :D

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.

Quote:

---

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.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/Onierous/AEP.jpg

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 :crying:

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.

You're going to need bulk data.

If you had a lucid dream every night and kept this up for months you wouldn't have enough data to confirm anything. Especially if you only have "ethereal projections" on occasion.

My suggestion is you use many dice, as many as you can remember the colors of anyway. This way if you actually do have an "ethereal projection" you should get all the dice correct simultaneously.

This goes back to the potential pitfalls of assuming too much about the thing you are studying, and how setting one's bench mark too high as a result can possibly lead to one overlooking relevant (but less dramatic) data.

I am not a mathematician, but I would think 30-50 trials ought to be pretty decent. I guess one way to find out how many trials I will need is to roll a die until I am close to an even distribution of results, then repeat rolling the die X amount of times to ensure the even distribution is constant at that number of rolls, and then aim for that number of trials in my experiment.

What do you think?

Hey. I didn't read through this thread as thoroughly as I could, so I apologize if following is redundant.

I am neither a mathematician or statistician, but I know that you don't need a high number of trials to know if you are getting significant results. Why don't you keep it simple, and start with about 10 trials. On a six sided die if you were to get just 6 colors correct in a row you're looking at ridiculous odds, 1 in 46656.

Just stay as true as you can to a strict protocol, which I know is tricky considering the nature of such tests. But we are all capable of confirmation bias, and minimizing its potential is key. Also, based on some of the challenges you've faced you could certainly simplify the experiments. First, why not eliminate the possibility of confusing multiple colors on a single die (during the OBE) by simply ensuring that only one single color of one single object is the target. For example, you could have 6 (or whatever #) distinctly colored marbles in a bag. For each trial blindly grab one and drop it into your target container, and that's it. For each subsequent trial repeat with all 6 marbles.

You mentioned it's difficult enough to accurately read a 2 digit number in that state, let alone a winning lottery number; your desire to keep the target veridical data in line with the nature of the experience is dead on.
Another poster mentioned using random pictures as targets. In some of my own experiments I was using this site.
http://www.randomword.net/
It generates a random word and accompanying picture, though I can't vouch for the statistics. My wife would print out the page with the picture and word and put that in an envelop, and that would be my target.

I hope you keep up with the research. It's exciting no matter which way the results go.

Yeah... in a row.

If it's a true "ethereal projection" you should be getting them all right at once. If its just a dream then you shouldn't.

The only thing you've succeeded in proving is that you don't have them every time (if at all) and you have no way of discerning if you actually had one or it was just blind luck. 40-50 tests is far too much error if your not having 100% accuracy.

If "ethereal projection" are erratic then you'll never have comprehensive data. You may need thousands of tests to see the slight lean. But if you put 10 dice in the jar and get them all right in one night you've practically proven your findings. Or if you don't in 20 or so tests you've disproven them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

If it's a true "ethereal projection" you should be getting them all right at once.

---

What are you basing this assumption off of exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

The only thing you've succeeded in proving is that you don't have them every time (if at all) and you have no way of discerning if you actually had one or it was just blind luck.

---

The way I would discern luck from "not luck" is by comparing the results of my experiment with the theoretical probability of what ought to happen by chance alone. If my results fall within what would be expected by chance alone, then that means there is most likely nothing special about EPs. If my results fall outside of what would be expected by chance alone, then that would indicate that there may be “something else” going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

40-50 tests is far too much error if your not having 100% accuracy.

---

Ok, do you actually have any math to back that up or were you just thinking out loud?
Even at the low end of that scale, 40 trials at 100% accuracy should only happen about 1 time in every 1,428,571,428,571,428,571,428,571,428 trials...which needless to say is far beyond what needs to be accomplished in order to have a significant finding.

Spoiler for The math to back it up:

This is calculated by following equation (1/6) ^ 40 (which is the odds of getting a "hit" in a single trial by chance alone to "the power" of the number of times you have consecutively got a "hit". If I were to have accomplished this, there is a .00000000000000000000000000000748 % chance that the results would have been by chance alone. So essentially what you just said was that anything less than a 1 on 1.4 octillion chance is not enough...which to put that into perspective is over 300 times less likely than winning the Poweball lottery 3 consecutive times. (1/150,000,000 ^3 = 3.375 septillion, and this number multiplied by 300 is still only 1.01 octillion). :roll:
Have you any idea just how large these numbers are? We are not talking millions here (or billions, or trillions, or quadrillions, or quintillions, etc, etc) we are talking octillions...I don't even know if octillion is even an official word, that's how high the number is.
Fun fact: Spell check stops at "quintillion".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

If "ethereal projection" are erratic then you'll never have comprehensive data. You may need thousands of tests to see the slight lean. But if you put 10 dice in the jar and get them all right in one night you've practically proven your findings.

---

If you don't have correct math to back yourself up, what you are saying completely worthless. And no matter what your opinion may be on the subject, you will still need some way to objectively quantify the data (i.e. by calculating out the probabilities) and you have made it clear to me that you do not really know what you are talking about when it comes to that area of science.
And just so that you are aware, in statistics rolling 10 dice at once is equivalent to rolling 1 die 10 separate times, in either case it is still just 10 independent variables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

Or if you don't in 20 or so tests you've disproven them.

---

Ok, this is just a lesson in logic: If 20 trials are not enough to "prove" anything, then it would follow that 20 trials are therefore not enough to "disprove" anything either. Honestly, I am starting to have second thoughts about the value of your opinion when it comes to the objectivity of this experiment.

I think you misunderstood me.

Quote:

---

What are you basing this assumption off of exactly?

---

Nothing. I'm only assuming that in an ethereal projection you have a 100% accuracy rate. You're right that could be totally wrong.

Quote:

---

Ok, do you actually have any math to back that up or were you just thinking out loud?
Even at the low end of that scale, 40 trials at 100% accuracy should only happen about 1 time in every 1,428,571,428,571,428,571,428,571,428 trials...which needless to say is far beyond what needs to be accomplished in order to have a significant finding.

---

I said if your not having 100% accuracy...

I'm assuming they don't happen every night, or even close to it. Then again I could be totally wrong.

Quote:

---

Ok, this is just a lesson in logic: If 20 trials are not enough to "prove" anything, then it would follow that 20 trials are therefore not enough to "disprove" anything either

---

I meant 20 tests with 10 dice.

Why are you arguing all this? I wasn't attacking any of the data! I only said you would have faster and better results if you used more dice. That's all!

Sorry I haven't responded in a while. The best way to explain why is to summarize what has happened recently:

- father diagnosed with terminal cancer
- cat died
- wife got into a car accident (but is ok)
- was on a new training schedule for a week with virtually the opposite days off and shift hours compared to what I normally have.


@ Systemslock

I apologize if I misunderstood you. Nevertheless, 200 dice trials (whether its 20 x 10 or otherwise) is not necessary to get significant findings. I think 25 trials ought to be enough, and here is why. For example, if we consider the odds of getting at least 10 trials out of 25 correct (a minimum of a 40% success rate), the odds of doing this by chance alone is less than half a percent (~.474%). However, if I were to do 200 trials, the odds of getting at least 40% success is about .00000000000003%.

As you can see, though a 40% success rate with 200 trials is significantly better than with 25 trials, having a ~99.5% chance that your results were not by coincidence alone is not too shabby, and 25 trials is doable. If you are interested in how I came up with these figures, the math is somewhat complicated but this will do it for you by plugging in the raw data.

I will resume the experiment this weekend, don't forget about me.

Oh ethen...I am so very sorry to hear about your father. And your cat. And your wife. :( Glad she's ok though. Must be a really rough time for you. Hang in there mate.

You most certainly will not be forgotten my friend.

thank you :)

Woke up at 4 am this morning, stayed up until 4:50, went back to bed but no luck. Will try again tomorrow.

Wow...

I'm sorry.

Ok, so about the same thing happened this morning as well. I woke up at 4, went to bed about 5:10, but had nothing but regular dreams though I had awoke and fell back asleep multiple times thereafter. :(

This weekend was somewhat disappointing. I attempted to use that lucid weaver app that I downloaded onto my phone, and again it let me down which wasted my Friday morning opportunity. Saturday morning I went back to my old method of just waking up at 4, staying up till 5, and then going back to sleep, but aside from some mild and short-lived vibrations I did not succeed in having a LD. I am starting to get discouraged

I quick way to find out if you're in an LD or EP - do a reality check as soon as you see the dice inside the container, except that this won't be a normal RC because you already know it's not normal reality. You're finding out if you're in a LD or EP. If any part of your body exists, it's probably an LD. If not, do another chack, because it could be a trick. As soon as something is wrong, it's an LD, not an EP.

I had anywhere between 6-10 lucid dreams this morning. I haven't had a series of lucid dreams like this in a long time. I didn't follow my normal technique that I usually do. I did wake up at 4, but I did not stay awake for the hour the technique usually calls for. Instead I fell back into a regular sleep, but each time I woke up, I tried to maintain my lucidity when going back to sleep.

The first lucid started with me noticing myself in sleep paralysis, I used this to spur on the first lucid dream which was only partially formed and unstable (had trouble seeing and etc). However, I then DEILD'd my next LD, and the next, and the next....and so on all this morning. There was only one of these dreams that was of sufficient quality for the experiment, but because of how perfect it was (everything was stable, I was actually in my apartment, etc) I believe I got too excited. As I rounded the corner to go into my kitchen, it faded away despite me rubbing my hands together, moving slowly, etc. The other LDs, though entertaining, were mostly of me in different places doing random things without any easy way to redirect those dreams for the needs of the experiment.

At this point I do not blame anyone if they have lost the motivation to follow along with this thread, I haven't had a good trial in a while after all. But I will keep posting my results because I know its only a matter of time before I get the data I need. Given that I already have 3 trials done and my end goal is 25, all it will take is 2-3 good strings of LDs for me to complete the experiment. I have a knack for turning one LD into several.

Ah man I hate that when I get too excited during the dream and things start disappearing in front of my face. Hand rubbing doesn't work much for me. What works everytime now is completely stopping whatever I am doing and taking a moment to do the hand examination technique combined with verbal commands "stabilize lucidity". Are you familiar with these techniques? This is the only method that has never failed me yet. I also have a similar knack for chaining lucids together, especially during naps. I used to have several "OBEs" a day when I would nap about 2 hours after waking up. I can't take naps anymore for various reasons, but I highly suggest that you give it a shot if you are able to nap at some point in the morning. You might find much more success with OBEs if you try napping.

I am familiar with affirmations, but I am not familiar with the hand examination technique you are referring to. I would love to learn it. It seems my biggest issue when it comes to these sorts of LDs/OBEs is keeping them stabilized long enough to get good data from them. My normal LDs don't seem to have this issue for some reason.

As far as the naps go, my work schedule just changed (again lol) and now I am working 4 10-hour shifts, with friday, saturday, and sunday off. I am actually quite happy with this change. One benefit is that this will give me 50% more opportunities to get trials in per week.