Facebook PixelDevelop a proof of concept for out of body experiences
Create newCreate new

Develop a proof of concept for out of body experiences

Image credit: AI Art work about challenge title created at hotpot platform

Marco Agudelo
Marco Agudelo Jun 15, 2022
Please leave the feedback on this challenge

Is the problem still unsolved?


Is it concisely described?

Bounty for the best solution

Provide a bounty for the best solution

Bounties attract serious brainpower to the challenge.

Currency *
Who gets the Bounty *
Can we develop a proof of concept that validates out-of-body experiences?
Imagine society isn't bound to space in time, capable of having out of body experiences. That wouldn't be enough to change our perspective about our world and around us?
To be capable for humans to experience at will, out of body experiences can be subject to a proof of concept, in a manner that through a logical / science / by any means / establishes proof of viability and sets principles of how to make it accessible to people. And if, only if through a proof of concept, obe turns out to be not viable or real for humans, this could help to cease once and for all the subject of projecting yourself in such a manner.
If this kind of experience is real, viable and trainable, maybe in the near future most of the people will use it. This will contribute one step as society, because of the capacity of being above social consumming needs, and being able to focus on living borderless. What would it mean to be earthers?
How it works
The brainstorm session here would be on how to establish through rigorous method a proof of the OBE's for humans, and if so, how to make it happen.
One should be able to respond to questions as if real then:
  • Of what nature is the change in position perceived during OBEs?
  • How does time change while space translation?
  • What of your being is or are connected during the process and how to measure?
And so, how can one elaborate a "proof of concept test" to estimate at least a percentage of viability upon the subject of out of body experiences self projection.
Take this book for example about “searching for truth to emerge out of conflict of opinions”, could it be that by applying those laws of thought, can be possible to elaborate this proof of concept?
What other methods do you suggest? Do you think it is feasible or is it to dig too deep into ourselves? would it be good for society?

[1]George Boole, November 1853; An investigation of the laws of thought, on which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probabilities. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15114/15114-pdf.pdf

Creative contributions

evaluating through logic test viability of astral projection

Marco Agudelo
Marco Agudelo Jul 08, 2022
During a playground session with an AI, I tried to argue through a logic test based on the referenced book of mr.Boole, the viability of astral projection in a search for further work on how to model the problem. An attached image sums the session.

There where two conclusion to look after:
  1. find a reason why some astral projections might not be viable.
  2. If some astral projections are viable, then astral projections are viable. So find at least one viable astral projection.


Please leave the feedback on this idea

On restrictions to the proof of concept model to make it feasible

Marco Agudelo
Marco Agudelo Sep 09, 2022
This contribution is on trying to define premises that may apply to the proof of concept exercise. By defining some conditions that restrain the evaluated thing and with this restriction see through a logic method if they are restrictions to a non-viable model or restrictions that cooperate into a consistent model.
To explain this is by method similar, in avoiding data information bias. If by concluding the restrictions restrain the model too much to a particular case rather than restrain it to a viable yet broad possible scenarios.
restrictions are based on reflections about the subject commented with Subash Chapagain and further lectures on work made by others
About what of your being is or are connected during the process and how to measure it
To define basic variables of the proof of concept test, let us define that consciousness would be the one thing that is connected during the OBE experience. In accordance with the posted references on the consciousness analysis, by defining this restriction one will say that when OBE occurs, consciousness will be on that reality laying the body on his biological functionality, not being in two places at once and all five IIT axioms will apply only to that further reality experience.
Consciousness as conceived to humans seems irreducible to separate elements.
Who it works
In the same manner consciousness flows from awake reality into dream, it could be possible to flow from state A into state B, into C, etc, not limiting to which state A should be (this is from which state to start) and understanding that a transitional state will be an OBE.
About consciousness capability.
Individuals to test on OBE, must be trained in consciousness. They must be capable to identify themself in what kind of reality they are to a point that can be made a group with more than one element, at least but not restrain to: (1) awake, (2) sleep-dreaming, (3) hallucination due to plant or synthetic based products; hallucinations due to any inside substance or state of mind is out of reach of this scope. This group could have a name, for simplicity I suggest R-baseGroup.
If a person is capable to identify themselves as part of a reality rather than just exist by reaction in that reality, may be possible that could be integrated the information exhibit during an out of body experience and by understanding that it were in a different reality of the R-baseGroup, could be created a memory of the experience into the conscious of the being and so could be recorded a positive OBE.
If the subject to test can only be rational and a memory decision maker on an awake reality, it could be possible that their connection between brain and consciousness will not create a rememberable situation of a non congruent successive events.
Similarly, if the person does not recall dreaming, if it lacks decision within a dream by only being in “dream” situations and not being able to acknowledge it as a change in reality or the person during hallucinations is almost lost on emotional creations, been incapable to recognize what parts are of the hallucination process and which are not. It could be suggested that the mind of that person wouldn’t be able to bond a congruent memory of the experience if it occurred and fall into false-positive OBE events with ease.
How it works:
In a similar way that a infant crawler do not understand yet the potential of a running, yet sees a person runs (and would be hard to prove it does not understand the run as a running), that infant will not be able to run, until learns to manage equilibrium, to walk and question himself about urge/joy to displacement and so may run.
The conscious must be trained to understand a given situation if it wants to be recalled.
Consciousness will be that thing experiencing the OBE and should be trained to differentiate it.
Because the proof of concept here matters to the viability of OBE, we are focusing on one self experience and not in a collective OBE group of persons experience. So the person that is subject to the test must be in the capacity of recalling it, differentiate from a group of known situations of consciousness.
Let's define a R-baseGroup composed of the collections of realities a consciousness may differentiate. The higher the order or the group, the better. It would be interesting to read which other kinds of reality you may consider or even better if you are in agreement with the proposed restriction.
This conclusion by his own seems not too much different from what can be found on the subject of OBE, but the difference here is the facts and logical procedure to achieve it.
Finally please have present the recommended lecture on laws of thought , because of the nature of the challenge is to generate a method to proof if possible or not, so in this sense this book, which I founded myself hard to comprehend and totally recommended to brainstormers self appointed to this challenge, may laid useful tools on the quest and could help by applying the methods imparted on the book, to avoid redundant divagation that may fall into this topic of OBE.
This creative contribution is a quest into the definition of viable conditions to generate the proof of concept, rather than start by the presumption that if viable then what, or what does it implies to be viable? Which attempts to question the nature of the experience and the dimensionality as well, the biochemical nature,physical properties, etc. Here we attempt to define which would be the required conditions (please evaluate and complement with further restrictions to the proof of concept test) in which could be evaluated to viable OBEs.





[5]George Boole, November 1853; An investigation of the laws of thought, on which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probabilities. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15114/15114-pdf.pdf

Please leave the feedback on this idea

Add your creative contribution

0 / 200

Added via the text editor

Sign up or


Guest sign up

* Indicates a required field

By using this platform you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

General comments

Marco Agudelo
Marco Agudelo9 months ago
Articles related to consciousness analysis:
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Subash Chapagain
Subash Chapagain2 years ago
Like any other experiential phenomena, Out of body experience might also be something that can neither be proven or disproven. I think so because, by definition, experiences are too subjective. To someone who has never tasted sugar, you cannot explain the sweetness. You can quantitatively measure the glucose, sucrose, and lactose to the molecular and atomic levels, yet you will never be able to make someone understand what the taste of 'sweetness' feels like in your palate until and unless they themselves taste sugar. As contemporary philosopher Daniel Dennet puts it, the problem lies in the inherent nature of experience, what he terms 'qualia'. The feeling of being you that is emergent from your biological substrate, or neurons, is very personal; and I will never be able to quantify what it is like being you. Having said this, there could be proxy mechanisms by which we could detect the phenomenon of out-of-body experience. For example, subjects can be given psychedelic drugs that supposedly cause such experiences and the brain activity be measured by MRI. Though such approach may help us identify the patterns of brain activity in control (normal) vs the brain with out of body experience, this is still miles and miles away from 'objective' quantification.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Marco Agudelo
Marco Agudelo2 years ago
Subash Chapagain Your point on feeling the sensation and properties of an out of body experience (OBE) is true, would be useful to describe them as it may be to describe the taste of sugar or being in a museum, etc. Is interesting the idea you introduced on qualia, I found this reference , if you recommend further lecture please do.
Notice the main idea here is not to describe the experience but to generate a proof of concept of the OBE itself. Following your example ¿can it be elaborated a method to prove something has sugar? yes; Then you can proof your concept, taste it and earn yourself the experience. So the challenge here tries to leave out all subjective characteristics that difficults generating the proof of concept. The challenge seeks for a rigorous method, could be imaginary if you feel so, but truly logical (that is why the recommended reference on Mr.Boole), that offers concise information on its reality or not.


Please leave the feedback on this idea
Marco Agudelo
Marco Agudelo2 years ago
Subash Chapagain I liked your skepticism very much, you may contribute valuable elements into the proof of concept by arguing for concrete evidence.
I have thought carefully on how to continue the idea about the proof of concept, so I will cite some lectures and parallel some examples, seeking to show that even though it can be a hard task to achieve, actual tools ease things to at least try.
Mechanical waves are manifestations of energy that propagate through a medium and they can not be transmitted over vacuum as electromagnetic waves do. Longitudinal and transverse waves refers to how the energy propagates parallel or perpendicular respectively through the medium, vacuum included, but with easy to catch examples as movement of a rope, ripples on a pond of water, sound etc. And doing natural philosophy reflection on the nature of a transverse wave of say light or magnetic field could be another challenge as well. Approaching from the perspective of defying before describing I think it could generate divergence on reflexions rather than contribute to identifying tools of thought to tackle the proof of concept challenge, and in this subject is what I have been thinking about on how to write this further comment.
A proof of concept should start by doing a reflection on the phenomenon itself, trying to describe the steps in logical terms, and searching for the simplest questions and consequences of the subject put to test. The work done over the reflections then, will suggest possible mathematical models to elaborate the proof of concept. Two examples I appreciate are Mr. Boole on the laws of thought and Mr.Maxwell on the line of forces of electromagnetic waves, not to compare us to those achievements, but to show how similar methods were implemented with success. Considering those achievements were made a long time ago, they just exchange letters with a few fellowes, friends and family, reflect on their subject, consult on documents on their reach, and so, without actual tools like world collaboration and access to knowledge as we can.
Maxwell decided to work on a theory in his time about molecular vortices to describe phonemana of electric forces and because of that first aid he achieved the description of electromagnetic field concept .
Mr Boole, did a clear methodological work on the nature, description and formulation of symbolical reasoning of the operations of the mind implied in language from which in short words, computational power is based.
So about the sound comment could be said too that inducing an OBE state through doing sound would be less viable, since the body will do a “type of work” generating the sound waves that are less probable to be connected to the experience. And there would be a different analysis on generating an external sound to induce it.
So here is another exercise to which I appreciate your reflection once having a look at recommended references:
Let's suppose by analyzing a similar phenomenon deduce a possible reflection to our OBE proof of concept research. Let’s compute the Force [N] multiplied by distance [m] achieved needed to sustain for a period of time [s] on the transition of medium from water to breathable air.
On the upper drawing allow us to suppose an scenario_A where a vertical displacement for the medium transition ideally similar to the one made by a sea creature when jumped out of sea. On the lower drawing instead scenario_B, the sea creature uses a third medium ground in this case, to apply a ideally tangential force to achieve a major period of time out on breathable air, this is stepping out on the seashore with the help of a third medium. If compared [N]x[m]x[s] of both scenarios, could be concluded on how scenario_B can be greater than scenario_A.
what is your opinion on the above example?
Can you come up with an example that is easy to understand about OBE viability (any of both viable or not viable)?









Please leave the feedback on this idea
Marco Agudelo
Marco Agudelo2 years ago
Subash Chapagain thank you on your comment.
(Please review the recommended links on previous detailed answers to this threat)
Science’s community was not in agreement on the electromagnetic phenomenon, not even in the relation of electric current and magnetic field. Maxwell worked on an unreal method of molecular vortices trying to explain the observed phenomena only well documented by Faraday, but comprehended to non. By working the molecular vortix model, maxwell was able to overcome it, define the electromagnetic property of light and develop the electromagnetic theory as we conceive it today that allows us to calculate the effects as you suggested in your comment.
By the use of a understandable example which replies in some way to a similar observable reality of the analyzed situation may lead to formulate constraints to the model helping it to defining it, not in the way that “if it happens here, happens there” but in the way that allows to form a reasonable though on the nature of the unknown observed situation.
A good trip on hallucinogens will imply a situation in which the subject acknowledge the experience as a whole, enjoying the named distortion of reality with awareness of being in that state due to a external substance and will eventually run out of your human system (even though could remain the thoughts and memories created on the hallucinogen experience for decades or even for life). A versed tripper distinguish reality during the trip to avoid putting himself in danger and having deteriorating thoughts that inflict the emotional state of being.🤹


Please leave the feedback on this idea