Lab Experiments...

[artdragondream]

Could someone direct me to a site with details on any lab experiments dealing with OBE's. I’ve heard there have been a few double blind experiments where the participant has an OBE and travels to a designated location to collect some information he could not know then return back to his body and relay that information. If there are any peer reviewed journals online or some site that describes the details and findings of the experiments that would be great.

Thanks

~Scott

[CFTraveler]

I think the RV organization website is the place to see this sort of stuff. I think there's a link to it in the ADpedia under Remote Viewing. I do know they do (or have done) double blind experiments in their research.

[artdragondream]

That’s not really what im looking for. I cant find anything on OBE's on the RV site. I know that Robert Bruce has participated in some experiments in Canada. Is there any information on the results of that?

[CFTraveler]

I'll ask.

[artdragondream]

Thank you.

[Donald McGlinn]

I would suggest posting your question in Ask Robert.

I am not sure when he will answer though as he has just flown out of Australia and wont be home again for 6 weeks and his net access overseas is sometimes sporadic.

[ariesr]

Robert bruce said he had participated in some experiments, but had to leave due to ill health. He was going to revisit this at another time.

[star]

Is it that you want real evidence right now? Or are you looking for something to publish. it might not count for much but I can say in my opinion that many of these experiements go on and come back 100% positive. :) Maybe you could grab a group of projectors and do it on your own? Publish your own test groups results.

[ariesr]

I would say once I have explored projection in a lot more detail and I am happy that it is not simply a product of my own mind then I would allow myself to be tested.

Got a lot of foundation work to do first. Building blocks to be put in place.

[sleeper]

one of the problems with designing an experiment and running it is that it's somewhat antagonistic to the true nature of our existence. It's hard to design a test that can produce a hard result, and also is also a natural part of astral travel. Many of the tests to see whether somebody is psychic, or astral traveling, could be somewhat ambiguous. the astral person could come back and say "I saw a scientist at a machine. In the room was also a table with some papers on it." the scientists are afraid that the astral person might be intentionally vague when describing what they say. In that case, according to the scientists, there might be no way of telling who is really projecting and who is just a good liar. they could put a red balloon in the room, but to an astral person, that could be an aura, or something else. So, the scientists will put a 15-digit serial number on a piece of paper on the table, and ask the astral person to go back and read what the paper says. But is the astral body interested in laboratory experiments? Is eternal consciousness interested in bar codes? Is spherical vision interested in paper scraps?

I'm not saying that it's impossible, only that the tests are tough and there are some hurdles to jump before they produce consistent results, from what i've seen.

[artdragondream]

The reason I’m looking for this is because I want to be able to show these results to the scientifically minded people out there that have a hard time accepting this as a possibility. I’ve heard several times on radio interviews and books on the subject of them taking about these experiments that have taken place as proof that the phenomenon exists and that it is testable and verifiable. Well I would like to see the results for myself. I don’t plan on publishing or writing anything I just would like to see the actual findings and published works from these scientists out of curiosity for one and as a powerful tool for spreading the word that there is more to reality than what we experience physically. Something like this could help fuel the effort to open peoples minds to these possibilities.

You see its stuff like this that can, in my view, save lives. What I mean is it, in a sense, help people wake up from the religious constraints that form intolerance and hate in our world. Experiential spirituality holds the possibility to change our entire world for the better. Once you experience this you cant help but be motivated to explore further and when you come to see the truths through this new perspective you want to help others to know what you know and see what you see, either through a desire to help people or to prove your not hallucinating. lol

In conclusion I have one pet peeve that really gets on my nerves. Its when people condemn something when they know nothing about it. Condemnation without investigation is the ultimate form of ignorance!!! So when I get the chance I would like to educate people in order to relieve them of there ignorance. I know that’s awful presumptuous of me but I would like to do what I can to help people open there minds and expand there consciousness.

And thats the end of my rant. :wink:

Thank you for your help

~Scott

[CFTraveler]

Hi Scott.
I certainly know I'd like to see people take stuff like this more seriously and to some extent have seen it in my life, but not because some scientist (who will eventually will be set aside and ridiculed by his peers, as it always seems to happen) creates some sort of testing system that can prove that OBEs are more than purely subjective phenomenon, but really because more people learn to induce the state and can have experiences that are verifiable to them, and make it legitimate- to them.
I think it's no secret that I don't think it's possible to objectively verify a phenomenon that is to some extent subjective, at least not in the sense that scientific systems work, but I'm ok with that because I've had enough experiences that have been verified to feel secure about what I do when I do it.
But I get what you're saying, and I sincerely hope that someday this is probable and verifiable the way that science tends to want evidence to be, but I won't be holding my breath.

[artdragondream]

I think it's no secret that I don't think it's possible to objectively verify a phenomenon that is to some extent subjective, at least not in the sense that scientific systems work, but I'm ok with that because I've had enough experiences that have been verified to feel secure about what I do when I do it.

Do you think Robert and other experts in OBE's are wrong to have claimed that the experiments conducted prove in an objective way that the phenomenon exists and the findings can be reproduced and verified?

~Scott

[CFTraveler]

I'm not in any position to judge whether they are wrong or right in claiming anything, I'm just giving my honest opinion. The thing is that verifiable is not always probable in the scientific world. And anything that is falsifiable is false in their view, so what objective proof means to one isn't considered objective proof in another.
Let's use something else in the modern world as an example:
Psychology is considered by the average person to be a science. Psychologists have been observing, cataloguing and mapping behaviour for a long time now, and have come up with therapies for different things. When you look at them from a statistical point of view, you'll see that there is always a margin of error for any given therapy- some people that are classified as "a" or "b" or "c" get whatever is supposed to work for their respective condition. The problem is that since most treatment is symptom-derived, and most symptoms are either reported by the patient or people around them, there is a margin for error in classification (that's why there's so many "borderline x y or z" diagnoses available, because symptoms cross over) so there's never any assurance that something's going to work 100% all the time. Why? Because the human mind is awesomely complex, and mostly they guess, and if a therapy works, the doctors think they were right in the diagnosis (they guessed good). And if it doesn't, it can be because of many other reasons.
But the thing is, that the scientific establishment sees psychology as a proto-science, or a 'soft science'. And some don't believe in its validity at all. Why? Because there is too much subjectivity in the analysis- too much room for interpretation.
So pretty much anything to do with the human mind is not a science, and not verifiable in the kind of scientific objectivity that is asked for by the scientific establishment.
So, in other words, what is proof for one camp is not proof for another.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
Me, I think therapy works, if you approach it to your own benefit. But I'll never say it's been proven to work, just as I'll never say OBE has been proven to exist. Although I know it does, and I have my own proof. But that's me.

[star]

For now I hope it doesn't upset you too much, instead try to enjoy the differing viewpoints until you can explain your own. :)