Thread: Inception- Is it possible?

shared dreaming is a load of junk. there's nothing remotely possible about it.

plant your ideas while you're awake. it'll be much more effective.

So how would you go about planting an idea in a person who's awake?
And if a machine did exist that could link people's dreams together, could it be used as it is in the film?

Originally Posted by TheEvilToaster

So how would you go about planting an idea in a person who's awake?

You would write a script, buy some cameras, hire actors, and then start filming, then show it to them.

Originally Posted by TheEvilToaster

And if a machine did exist that could link people's dreams together, could it be used as it is in the film?

What? How would anybody know? The machine is fictional, therefore the effects are fictional.

You are going to get a lot of sceptics in here.

I'm neutral on it, but you are best looking here
Shared dreaming is talked about a lot in that section.

No. That's not how brains work. Duh.

Oh so you know how brains work, do you. You know absolutely everything about them?

Unfortunately our understanding of the brain shows that it is absolutely impossible.

Technology may make something similar possible but it's really nowhere near that stage right now. We don't even have any basic understanding of the language of the brain yet.

Yea, I just hope within my lifetime technology develops to a point where something "similar" is possible.

I think extrapolating from the current trends in technology, what you can expect is some kind of totally immersive virtual environments in which you can interact in real time with anybody connected to the net. In fact I'd imagine that's what the internet will end up looking like (or at least some subset of it).

It's not related to the dream state, but it is effectively the same experience as 'shared dreams'.

I think the OP wanted a scientific explanation for why it's not possible to hook our heads up to machines and synchronize our brainwaves. Think less fantasy, more sci-fi.

No. That's not how brains work. Duh.

You're not helping.

So how would you go about planting an idea in a person who's awake?

Advertisers do it all the time.

Yea, that will most likely be the first "close" thing to it.

I'm sure after that, there will be some sort of technology which goes a little bit further. Like, tech that actually uses your mind directly, rather than just your senses.

But really, a totally immersive virtual type thing... I would die happy to see that become reality.

Since we're more or less on the subject, it seems appropriate to post the newest TED talk, just posted today:

Edit: the youtube embedding didn't work. Here's a URL
http://www.ted.com/talks/tan_le_a_he...rainwaves.html

Well, this is a pretty cool first step.

ETA: Ooh, new TED talks? Thanks for the link, DuB.

Shared dreaming is one thing. Inception is another. I don't really get the movie why they show original ideas as something that only stems from a persons subconscious. That's just not the way it works!

Our thoughts and emotions are influenced all the time without us realizing it.

And yes, there are so many people who testify to shared dreaming. Saying it's all bullcrap is just an immature way to completely deny something that would burst your bubble. Why not talk to people who have had these experiences before pretending they never happen?

There are a lot of scientists now trying to uncover the science of psychic phenomenon, people sensing each others emotions, thoughts, shared dreaming. Or rather, a new science of how our thoughts interact with the rest of the world. The book the Intention Project is a good place to start.

We don't listen because it's so obvious they're mistaken, even though they may think they're being honest (confirmation bias runs rampant here. Even if the two of you both had a lucid dream in which you met the other; how do you know it was anything more than just a lucid dream? People jump to conclusions, or latch onto some coincidental thing which they think they 'shared' but on close inspection it turns out that they're just embellishing it and falling victim to retroactive memory).

It would be so easy to prove shared dreaming scientifically (give one person a password to give to the other), so the fact that nobody has done so makes it very clear that there is no such thing (and there's the huge amount of fame and money that would come with it to motivate such an endeavour; two things which don't usually turn people off).

That plus it's completely at odds with everything we do know about brain function, which is via electrochemical impulses; electrochemical impulses which you'd find it very hard to send to somebody many miles away through nothing but thin air.

:/

While it may be possible, at some point in the future, for people to directly interact with each other's brains via some electronic device or whatever, it is not possible for two brains to link together in any way shape or form remotely. I'm sure some fucked up shit would happen if you tried to merge people's nervous systems, but as far as interfacing remotely via a dream? That's pretty much completely impossible. And you can value personal testimonies all you want. As far as I recall, people make shit up all the time, for money, recognition, and for fun. It's called FICTION and DELUSION.

I once read someone who referred to parapsychology as "the control group for science," which I thought was a clever and interesting comparison. Think about it: this is a group of people who go through all the motions that regular scientists do, performing experiments, publishing papers, attending conferences, applying for grants, etc., but they happen to be studying something which as far as we know, simply doesn't exist. Of course, the vagaries of chance insure that they occasionally observe a positive result, and our increasingly outdated peer-review-based publication system sees to it that these make it into the literature. So it seems that when any other scientific discipline examines itself in the mirror, it ought to ask itself: Are we observing more reliable results than in parapsychology? Are we performing better than the control group?

Originally Posted by Xei

I think extrapolating from the current trends in technology, what you can expect is some kind of totally immersive virtual environments in which you can interact in real time with anybody connected to the net. In fact I'd imagine that's what the internet will end up looking like (or at least some subset of it).

It's not related to the dream state, but it is effectively the same experience as 'shared dreams'.

Sorry, Xei, I didn't see this reply. I agree that this is more likely.

Anyway, I don't want to get involved in the "Shared Dreaming: Real or Not" argument. I just wanted to point out that the OP was probably more interested in the technological side of things, and a couple people immediately jumped down his throat for starting what seemed like "yet another" shared dreaming thread.

Originally Posted by Xei

We don't listen because it's so obvious they're mistaken

It's ONLY obvious to people who have decided that these things could never be possible. Therefore every time they read a shared dreaming experience they do so WITH BIAS, and shade and color the interpretation of the shared dreaming experience to something that makes them happy.

Can you honestly tell me you don't have a bias against shared dreaming?

From precognitive dreams, to dreaming about real time events as they happen - even if its happening miles away, to dreaming with another person and confirming the events in the morning - there are too many experiences world wide to shut out with out-dated science. At this point the only sane option is to be open minded and honestly admit that maybe our science doesn't understand YET. It's on the verge of understanding the mystery of thoughts and consciousness.

That plus it's completely at odds with everything we do know about brain function

Correction, it's completely at odds with everything YOU know. Our understanding of thoughts and consciousness is still a work in progress, and there are promising experiments taking place leading to the conclusion that our thoughts are not confined to our brain.

Originally Posted by DuB

Since we're more or less on the subject, it seems appropriate to post the newest TED talk, just posted today:

Edit: the youtube embedding didn't work. Here's a URL
Tan Le: A headset that reads your brainwaves | Video on TED.com

Yeah, that's the first steps in the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I didn't personally find the presentation that powerful. If they were able to show somebody synchronising basic movements, and then being able to completely manipulate something in 3-space (rotate, translate, possibly enlarge and shrink), essentially utilising multiple functions simultaneously, I'd have found it more exciting, but selecting from a drop down menu... well, you only need binary detection for that. You could do exactly the same thing by shouting 'disappear!' at a microphone, and have the program make the box disappear whenever it detects a sound.

I liked the part about video games detecting your emotional state and altering the game environment, such as weather or whatever, accordingly. That could make for some really freaky horror games. "Doom 2020," anyone?

I'm imagining the part where my computer does something stupid, and then has to go, "Meep! Please don't hurt me!" when I start to rage at it.

It's ONLY obvious to people who have decided that these things could never be possible. Therefore every time they read a shared dreaming experience they do so WITH BIAS, and shade and color the interpretation of the shared dreaming experience to something that makes them happy.

Can you honestly tell me you don't have a bias against shared dreaming?

From precognitive dreams, to dreaming about real time events as they happen - even if its happening miles away, to dreaming with another person and confirming the events in the morning - there are too many experiences world wide to shut out with out-dated science. At this point the only sane option is to be open minded and honestly admit that maybe our science doesn't understand YET. It's on the verge of understanding the mystery of thoughts and consciousness.

(Don't interpret the caps as shouting; they're just there for potency).

HOW MANY TIMES, juroara, will we have to explain the basics of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to you, or indeed the UTTERMOST BASICS OF RATIONAL THOUGHT?



You lecture me on open-mindedness; just look at the ridiculous manner in which you quoted me. It's quite clear that single sentence assertions are the only things in my posts which actually make it into your consciousness. I provided an entire post of rational argument, and your response is to quote "it's obvious that it's not true" as if that was an honest representation of everything I'd said!

Please follow these simple bullet points. I pray in this blunt form you'll actually try to comprehend some of what I say instead of yet again prescribing to me some kind of ridiculous pre-formed caricature so as not to face up to what I'm really saying. Here we go:

1. I am COMPLETELY open minded to ANYTHING, as long as you can give me some kind of REASON to believe it's true. To believe that something is true without any reason, and even when people give evidence to the contrary, as you would rather do, is in fact THE COMPLETE POLAR OPPOSITE OF OPEN-MINDEDNESS.

The statement above is ALL that science is. Science is not a collection of prejudices. Science is not in fact a static collection of anything at all. Science is NOT a compendium of incontrovertible collected knowledge. To call science 'out-dated' is to show total ignorance of what science is.

SCIENCE: believe whatever there is evidence for. Don't believe what there is no evidence for.

How can you possibly argue with this?

2. Following on from the above, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO PREJUDICES WHICH WOULD CAUSE ME TO DENY SHARED DREAMING.

In fact I would find it incredibly comforting if such a wonderful, inexplicable thing were possible.

3. There is NO EVIDENCE of anybody having shared a dream, despite the fact that it would be EXTREMELY EASY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE in rigorous experimental conditions, and that there is a HUGE MOTIVATION to try to do so.

Just think about it. How many famous scientists do you think only accepted the status quo of previous discoveries and speculated nothing new at all? Name one?

4. As there is no evidence, it follows that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to believe in shared dreaming, unless you have a BIAS to do so.

Correction, it's completely at odds with everything YOU know. Our understanding of thoughts and consciousness is still a work in progress, and there are promising experiments taking place leading to the conclusion that our thoughts are not confined to our brain.

No, juroara, counter correction: science has provided evidence that consciousness functions based on electrical impulses. Science has provided evidence that electrical impulses have no mechanism by which to travel with intent across empty space. Therefore, science implies that shared dreaming can't happen.

What you're saying is analogous to me justifying my ability to levitate via the statement 'it's only at odds with what YOU know about gravity. You're actually ignorant. You can't prove I can't do it'.

No, of course you can't prove it because you're not omniscient, nor is anyone. But if you believed that somebody could levitate based on the above statement you'd be a complete and utter goon. There's no reason to believe it!

As for your final statement: okay. Explain to me (in brief, if you want) a single experiment that has shown that.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

:/

While it may be possible, at some point in the future, for people to directly interact with each other's brains via some electronic device or whatever, it is not possible for two brains to link together in any way shape or form remotely. I'm sure some fucked up shit would happen if you tried to merge people's nervous systems, but as far as interfacing remotely via a dream? That's pretty much completely impossible. And you can value personal testimonies all you want. As far as I recall, people make shit up all the time, for money, recognition, and for fun. It's called FICTION and DELUSION.

I consider it delusion to deny thousands of human experiences (from precog dreams to shared dreaming) just because your science text book can't talk about it yet.

Actually this is a huge problem. The number of people who have experienced something out of the box is staggering, it's huge. People are uncomfortable talking about their experiences for fear of being ridiculed. Money, recognition? Not likely. The average person who has experienced a share dream doesn't share their experience with the populace. Any more, than the average lucid dreamer feels confident talking about their lucid dreams at the work place. I know I dont!

And just as the average lucid dreamer is happy with their own proof, so are the average people who dream share. When you research dream sharing - that means outside of DVs -you realize that dream sharing is more likely to happen between couples, best friends and close family members. Why do people who already have a close relationship need science to prove to them what they experienced, anymore than they need to science to prove to them that they love each other?

And why would they ever let science or nay-sayers take something so intimate away from them?

This mentality of labeling someone as either crazy, delusional, or lying because they experienced something outside the box helps no one. It generates the fear of being ridiculed. People remain silent about their experiences, and we lose the reality of how common it is.

We need to honor the human experience - in all of her various forms. And we need to realize that a text book doesn't define what we humans experience. WE TELL SCIENCE what a human can experience - by experiencing. Not the other way around.

To use science to say "Well yes lots of people have experience what you experienced but since we don't know how you experienced it, were going to say you're just lying". That's retarded!! If you don't know how someone experienced something, just be honest and say you don't know how.

It wasn't until very recently that science finally admitted that love is MORE than a chemical reaction. Something we romantic humans already knew (for thousands of years thank you)!

This new science suggests that our emotions are far-reaching. Literally interacting with the electromagnetic heart fields of others - influencing their own emotions. Were talking about emotions - which were once thought to be chemical reactions locked away in your body - to an energetic real-time communication between individuals across actual space!

There is a momentum happening in the world of biophysics. It's a very fascinating world, that could lead to the conclusion that thoughts are composed of light, and are not unlike our own computers using energy to carry information. No seriously! Think about wireless internet.

Do you have any idea how weird that is? Information just flying around being picked up by a device! Milestones in our technological advancement actually mimic an aspect of our biology BEFORE we discovered that aspect of our biology. The computer could very well be a mirror reflecting to us the secrets of our own brain. Including, it's wifi capability

We have been very slow to apply all the lessons of physics to our own biology. It is far too soon to write up the books on our brain. Biophysics could very well prove the psychic phenomenon as reality. But that is actually one of the least amazing things biophysics is studying.