Veridical OBE dreams

#1
Maybe I missed the post on some other part of the forum, but I am really surprised that AP's OBE dreams aren't often discussed here.

I first read about them a few weeks ago on Michael Prescott's blog, here.

I think they are incredibly fascinating, and if true (as in AP is describing the events truthfully to the best of his ability and is not withholding relevant information) would pretty much dismantle my personal skepticism.

Let me quote from the relevant section that I think is very convincing.
"Finally, Andrew offers a particularly detailed example in which he saw his uncle and aunt discussing a painting his uncle had just done. Andrew's sketch of the painting, made in his journal, matches the size, dimensions, and general appearance of the actual painting quite closely, and his description of the color scheme is correct. This is especially impressive given that the shape of the painting was unusual, and the subject, a landscape, is depicted in a stylized manner. Moreover, the uncle had never before shown an interest in painting, and Andrew was unaware that he had recently taken it up. (This was, in fact, his very first painting.) The distance again was considerable - Andrew was in New Jersey, and his relatives were in Minnesota."
 
#2
Here is the paintings in question

First one is the actual painting, sent after AP called to test for the accuracy of his dream.

Second one is the drawing that he made of the dream painting.

 
#7
It was just the thought of critiquing the work of one of the forum mods... ;)
Oh haha thats funny.

I'm sure AP would welcome objective analysis of his work. It just really seems like that particular incident, from my perspective, provides strong enough reasons to take "psi" serious. As in it is a part of reality, but maybe not the dominant part of reality.
 
#8
Dreams really need to be studied more than they are, especially ones like this. Otherwise, we're left to guesswork on whether psi or similar phenomena are involved, or if it's just a large-number coincidence of some kind.
 
#9
Dreams really need to be studied more than they are, especially ones like this. Otherwise, we're left to guesswork on whether psi or similar phenomena are involved, or if it's just a large-number coincidence of some kind.
Fortunately we don't need to ask anyone else to carry out such studies on our behalf. This research can be carried out by any and all of us, if we are sufficiently interested.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#10
To the OP: If Psi occurring in dreams interests you, I'd check out the work of Krippner and Ullman. (I'll throw in some links later.)

I really should buy Andy's book - it's on my list of books to read, sadly that list could go on forever.
 
#11
To the OP: If Psi occurring in dreams interests you, I'd check out the work of Krippner and Ullman. (I'll throw in some links later.)

I really should buy Andy's book - it's on my list of books to read, sadly that list could go on forever.
The reason dreams interest me is because I have had a few minor incidents of weird dream related synchronicity. For this reason I think dreams are a good way for me to personally test reality for psi, God, or some prime reality.

I'll google those names and check em out, but I certainly would welcome any links.
 
#12
Trully Impressive. However I remain a bit skeptical, since I don't have all the details of the story. ¿What is the skeptics reply to his account?, ¿has he ever taken a riguruous test to scientifically determine if his remote viewing abilities are genuine?
 
#13
Trully Impressive. However I remain a bit skeptical, since I don't have all the details of the story. ¿What is the skeptics reply to his account?, ¿has he ever taken a riguruous test to scientifically determine if his remote viewing abilities are genuine?
My sentiments exactly. I am impressed and more willing now than ever to accept psi. However I do have some very minor skepticism. Mostly on the nature of how accurate the story is. If accurate then I'll gladly concede my skepticism.
 
#14
Trully Impressive. However I remain a bit skeptical, since I don't have all the details of the story. ¿What is the skeptics reply to his account?, ¿has he ever taken a riguruous test to scientifically determine if his remote viewing abilities are genuine?
He has written a book and published a couple of papers regarding the veridical dreams and OBEs. Dig a little. You will find it. Go to the old forum. There were some extended conversations there.
 
#15
He has written a book and published a couple of papers regarding the veridical dreams and OBEs. Dig a little. You will find it. Go to the old forum. There were some extended conversations there.
Thanks. I did found a paper by following the line of Prescott's blog, however I've been unable to find anything in the old forum. ¿any help?
 
#16
Just a quick question to anyone who might be lurking and might know. I started to think that in so many dreams, the law of big numbers might turn at least some of them to fit experiences by familiars or friends ( as in Andrews Dream Journals). My question is, ¿how much of them? or in other words, ¿what is the expected chance of accuracy of dreams given the null hypothesis, and in how much his dreams exceed this number? I've found the question ( in my humble opinion at least ), to be both important to rigurously test his claims, but at the same time I don't know how one could go into calculating such a thing.
 
Last edited:
#17
Just a quick question to anyone who might be lurking and might know. I started to think that in so many dreams, the law of big numbers might turn at least some of them to fit experiences by familiars or friends ( as in Andrews Dream Journals). My question is, ¿how much of them? or in other words, ¿what is the expected chance of accuracy of dreams given the null hypothesis, and in how much his dreams exceed this number? I've found the question ( in my humble opinion at least ), to be both important to rigurously test his claims, but at the same time I don't know how one could go into calculating such a thing.
AP addressed a similar question on Prescott's blog. Here is his response in full:

"@Kathleen: Your "millions of people having millions of dreams" comment is easy to say but not easy to check. That said, I made a stab at checking it in my most recent paper. It is still in review, so I won't say too much here. However, though there are billions of people who can have dreams, and trillions (or more) if you include animals, on an individual level you are not talking about "millions" of dreams but thousands. When you look at the thousands as I have done, one thing that comes across very strongly is that very few of the thousands involved can be checked. That is to say, even if they were completely accurate in some objective way, there is no way to check their veridicality due to various factors such as unknown dream characters or lack of access to anyone who could verify the dream. Once you remove these from the group, you are left with hundreds--not thousands or millions.

You can contend that you still have your billions of individuals having dreams (the trillions of animals are excluded due to a lack of common language), so the number of potentially veridical dreams any individual might experience is irrelevant. No matter how small that number is, multiplied by the number of individuals it is still a big number. However, on examination dreams sort themselves into different types of content categories. This limits the "millions and millions" argument more because only certain categories are of interest to the field of parapsychology.

Then you need to look at how frequent veridicality occurs in any one person's dreams over a lifetime of record-keeping. If it happens quite often, the statistical edge no longer favors chance, but connection of some kind between dream content and objectively real events. Very few people have ever collected enough of their own dreams to make such comparisons. I have done this and can say that on a statistical level, randomness as an explanation does not match the data. Put another way, predictions by skeptics on this subject are exactly the opposite of what I find in my data. We are not talking about correlations in numbers that tend toward non-significance as the number of dreams increases, but the opposite.

I'll give one fast example, then refer to the paper later when it is out: In dreams of people who have died, though their death was unknown to me at the time I started the study, in most of the interesting cases they are people who either appeared exactly once in the journal (out of over 11,000 entries). or the first dream that mentions them and the subject of their death is meaningfully close to the actual date of their death (and usually is only one of two or three dreams that mention them). People who appear often, and there are people who appear in hundreds of dreams, have no dreams of death connected to them. In other words, the less often a person appears, usually once or twice, the more likely the death dream will be meaningfully near to their actual death date. The more dreams there are, in contradiction of skeptical pronouncements on this exact subject, the less likely any such correlation will be found.

AP"
 
#18
AP addressed a similar question on Prescott's blog. Here is his response in full:

"@Kathleen: Your "millions of people having millions of dreams" comment is easy to say but not easy to check. That said, I made a stab at checking it in my most recent paper. It is still in review, so I won't say too much here. However, though there are billions of people who can have dreams, and trillions (or more) if you include animals, on an individual level you are not talking about "millions" of dreams but thousands. When you look at the thousands as I have done, one thing that comes across very strongly is that very few of the thousands involved can be checked. That is to say, even if they were completely accurate in some objective way, there is no way to check their veridicality due to various factors such as unknown dream characters or lack of access to anyone who could verify the dream. Once you remove these from the group, you are left with hundreds--not thousands or millions.

You can contend that you still have your billions of individuals having dreams (the trillions of animals are excluded due to a lack of common language), so the number of potentially veridical dreams any individual might experience is irrelevant. No matter how small that number is, multiplied by the number of individuals it is still a big number. However, on examination dreams sort themselves into different types of content categories. This limits the "millions and millions" argument more because only certain categories are of interest to the field of parapsychology.

Then you need to look at how frequent veridicality occurs in any one person's dreams over a lifetime of record-keeping. If it happens quite often, the statistical edge no longer favors chance, but connection of some kind between dream content and objectively real events. Very few people have ever collected enough of their own dreams to make such comparisons. I have done this and can say that on a statistical level, randomness as an explanation does not match the data. Put another way, predictions by skeptics on this subject are exactly the opposite of what I find in my data. We are not talking about correlations in numbers that tend toward non-significance as the number of dreams increases, but the opposite.

I'll give one fast example, then refer to the paper later when it is out: In dreams of people who have died, though their death was unknown to me at the time I started the study, in most of the interesting cases they are people who either appeared exactly once in the journal (out of over 11,000 entries). or the first dream that mentions them and the subject of their death is meaningfully close to the actual date of their death (and usually is only one of two or three dreams that mention them). People who appear often, and there are people who appear in hundreds of dreams, have no dreams of death connected to them. In other words, the less often a person appears, usually once or twice, the more likely the death dream will be meaningfully near to their actual death date. The more dreams there are, in contradiction of skeptical pronouncements on this exact subject, the less likely any such correlation will be found.

AP"
Thank you very much. ¿What do you think about that reply, Anon?
 
#20
Thank you very much. ¿What do you think about that reply, Anon?
It should be left up to other disinterested parties to determine the truthfulness of someone's claim. Haven't you noticed everyone argues favorably their own ideas? Andy might be right, but that's no road to the truth.
 
Top