blah blah blah try it yourself

[Baron Samedi]

Ya know, no where in the Beyond Dreaming section does it say: a place for debate. All the time and energy spent arguing could be used for more productive things, like lucid dreaming, meditating, astral projection, remote viewing, dream incubation....magic.... COOL STUFF LIKE THAT. magic > arguing If you are truly following the scientific process, you formulate a hypothesis, then you experiment, collecting massive amounts of data. You keep experimenting until you are convinced your hypothesis may be true, or untrue. If it may be true, it becomes a theory. If it may not be true, you reformulate your hypothesis based on the data. If you are a skeptic, just try it for yourself. If you call yourself a believer, try it for yourself. Blindly accepting anything as truth is silly. You know some people believe lucid dreaming is not real, right? But, why do you believe it? Probably the same reason I believe in what I do: personal experience. Personal experience trumps all debate. It is completely impossible to convince me I am wrong about my personal experience. It is also completely impossible to convince you of something based on my experience. Your core beliefs are based on your personal experience no matter what anyone says. That's why I said in another thread," what they say doesn't matter." What everyone says doesn't matter. This site has so much great information and tutorials, and experienced people that you can learn lucid dreaming, AP, and other things from. If you are a curious skeptic, try it. If you are trying to learn, learn. If you want to teach, teach the ones who want to learn. If you are a skeptic, and not curious, you are ignorant. Focus your energy on forward momentum. Don't get caught in the trap of the psychic vampires baiting you into endless debates while they simultaneously appeal to reason, and use pathetic ad hominem attacks to incite you to release the negative energy they so crave. Ask yourself: why I am arguing with this person? Why am I trying to convince them? Let it go. You can't convince someone of anything. They are only convinced by personal experience. Only encourage them to try it. I can tell you all about sex, o virgin, but until you fuck, you really don't know how it feels. I am not going to try to convince you that it feels amazing. There is a lot of scientific and anecdotal evidence to show that sex is indeed pleasurable. But, as long as you are a virgin, you don't really know. All us fuckers could be lying.

[mowglycdb]

I second this, I've tried some mighty crazy things, that did have some sort of result, it's about giving it a try and see how it goes for ya.

[Oneironaut Zero]

In most cases, I would agree with the "don't knock it til you try it" philosophy. However, 'magic' (and other 'paranormal' activity) isn't really one of them. Reason being, is that many people will tell you that it takes dedication and practice to achieve such things. Yes, I know that - like lucid dreaming - some people have claimed to have success in these areas after just small periods of application, but even those anecdotes are either few and far between, or completely insubstantial. This leads to the problem, which is; exactly how much time, effort and dedication are you willing to spend on something that (as far as the most quantifiable areas of human knowledge will tell you) most likely is not possible? I - like many other people - have dabbled in experimenting with magic, psi, astral projection (within and without the dream state) and other things, but with 0-to-questionable results. The problem is, how do you expect someone to devote all of that time and effort into something that nobody can prove? It's different with lucid dreaming. It has been scientifically verified, explained and discussed in detail as to how it is physically possible. The other phenomena we are talking about does not. So yes, you have people that are interested in such things, but have very legitimate reasons as to why "Just try it," is not a good thing to tell people, because it's kind of like saying "Yeah, sure...anyone can fly by using telekinesis. There is no true proof of this, but if you spend X-amount of time and energy trying it, you can do it. Just try it!" It really rings kind of hollow. Just my two cents.

[Ketsuyume]

I think WN's point is simply to say that all the time people spend arguing with each other about why the other person is wrong could be used to further one's self education on these topics. I enjoy debate personally because it's how I educate my self on certain issues, but I tend to not get caught in heat of personal attacks like so many others seem to. -K

[Man of Shred]

I notice a lot of skeptical criticism.. even from O's point is based upon having things "proven". Why should I let other people whom I don't know and who may not have my best interests in mind dictate what I should invest my time in? Proving something like this to myself Is much more rewarding for me than proving it to everyone else. So in essence who has more integrity? The guy who proves and dictates reality for himself? or the guy who lets others dictate his own reality without questioning or finding it out for himself. And then there's always the classic claim "They're all going to laugh at you." Well you know what. Who gives a damn what people think. Why let what others thinking rule your own existence? I mean if people laughing at you, or worrying about what everyone just knows to be true, or science proven stuff is going to prevent you from finding out the truth for yourself... Then you are the most lost person I have ever known.

[KushyBear]

WakingNomad, your post gave me deja vu.... But I do agree with what you're saying.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I notice a lot of skeptical criticism.. even from O's point is based upon having things "proven". Why should I let other people whom I don't know and who may not have my best interests in mind dictate what I should invest my time in? Proving something like this to myself Is much more rewarding for me than proving it to everyone else. So in essence who has more integrity? The guy who proves and dictates reality for himself? or the guy who lets others dictate his own reality without questioning or finding it out for himself. And then there's always the classic claim "They're all going to laugh at you." Well you know what. Who gives a damn what people think. Why let what others thinking rule your own existence? I mean if people laughing at you, or worrying about what everyone just knows to be true, or science proven stuff is going to prevent you from finding out the truth for yourself... Then you are the most lost person I have ever known. I'll remember that, next time I see one of those "no smoking" signs @ a gas pump. Excuse the sarcasm. It's just to make the point that, even though the ideology you speak of is often beneficial, there are many, many instances where it is not.

[Atras]

In most cases, I would agree with the "don't knock it til you try it" philosophy. However, 'magic' (and other 'paranormal' activity) isn't really one of them. Reason being, is that many people will tell you that it takes dedication and practice to achieve such things. Yes, I know that - like lucid dreaming - some people have claimed to have success in these areas after just small periods of application, but even those anecdotes are either few and far between, or completely insubstantial. This leads to the problem, which is; exactly how much time, effort and dedication are you willing to spend on something that (as far as the most quantifiable areas of human knowledge will tell you) most likely is not possible? I - like many other people - have dabbled in experimenting with magic, psi, astral projection (within and without the dream state) and other things, but with 0-to-questionable results. The problem is, how do you expect someone to devote all of that time and effort into something that nobody can prove? It's different with lucid dreaming. It has been scientifically verified, explained and discussed in detail as to how it is physically possible. The other phenomena we are talking about does not. So yes, you have people that are interested in such things, but have very legitimate reasons as to why "Just try it," is not a good thing to tell people, because it's kind of like saying "Yeah, sure...anyone can fly by using telekinesis. There is no true proof of this, but if you spend X-amount of time and energy trying it, you can do it. Just try it!" It really rings kind of hollow. Just my two cents. I agree but I think his point was that instead of arguing whether or not this stuff is real, try it yourself. Theres no point in arguing if you haven't tried. And if you have tried and can't prove it to yourself, then thats fine but trying to prove to other people that its not real through endless argumentation, even if youve proved it to yourself that it isnt real, is pointless because they can never know for sure if its real or not until they themselves have tried. I was skeptical of Waking Nomad for a while about the existence of shared dreaming, and then I proved it to myself. I had a lucid dream where I went to the moon and was in a Biodome, and then the next day i found out that there was a Biodome present in many of Waking Nomad's dream journal entries, even though I had never read his dj entries before. And then a couple months later I had a l shared dream with another user on this site on a pirate ship.

[Naiya]

I think many people confuse being a skeptic with being a debunker. It's healthy to be a skeptic, and even those people who believe in things that are not scientifically proven should hold a healthy amount of doubt and constantly hold a critical eye to their beliefs in order to reformulate beliefs and ideas to make them as accurate as possible. A debunker is just a person who likes to say things like, "No, that's impossible, you're stupid for even testing it, that's just a waste of time." Science is limited in its ability to define the world around us. It can only verify and describe things which can be tested, quantified, perceived physically. Science cannot answer questions like whether or not there is a God or whether or not there is a soul. Those things are just outside the realm of science. They can't be tested, so they are neither proven nor disproven. So using science itself to say whether or not a paranormal thing is proven is just silly, because science cannot comment on those things. If you don't have the tools to test whether or not something exists, you can't say whether or not it exists. For example, if I have a black box with a circuit board inside, how can I say if there are diodes, resistors, batteries, etc unless I have the tools to measure the current, voltage and resistance? Scientifically I can't say what is or isn't in the box unless I have the data. Right now, all the paranormal phenomena we know of (and then some) may or may not be inside that box. We don't know.

[kenietz]

I can tell you all about sex, o virgin, but until you fuck, you really don't know how it feels. I am not going to try to convince you that it feels amazing. There is a lot of scientific and anecdotal evidence to show that sex is indeed pleasurable. But, as long as you are a virgin, you don't really know. All us fuckers could be lying. Exactly that example i am using as well when telling people about dreaming and other things in life. It says everything in a beautiful and down to earth way Most of the things in our lives are just to be experienced and not proven by science. Science is ok for some things but not for all. That is my opinion. Even what our parents are telling us is true about life we do not believe until we hit our heads in the wall and find it out by ourselves. That i believe is proven In the line of Nomad's thought another example is love. You wont know it until you meet it and feel it with all the beauty and pain. But in order to meet it you have to get out of the shell. Reading about love brings nothing. Some time ago i even came across some scientific explanations of love with chemistry. Poor guys. Staying in the lab trying to 'destroy' a beautiful thing instead of going out and try to experience it. Peace

[Oneironaut Zero]

Science cannot answer questions like whether or not there is a God or whether or not there is a soul. Those things are just outside the realm of science. They can't be tested, so they are neither proven nor disproven. So using science itself to say whether or not a paranormal thing is proven is just silly, because science cannot comment on those things. I agree with everything you said, but this. Actually, it's not so much that I disagree with it. It's just that I think it's important to expand on it, to say that science cannot answer these questions, yet. Science, as a methodology, is not limited to the tools that we have at our disposal, at present. Many, many years from now, when we have potentially developed the tools to explore many of the things that we may now call 'paranormal', it will still be science. I think to say that science 'cannot' answer these questions is to put a cap on the potential of science.

[Naiya]

I agree with everything you said, but this. Actually, it's not so much that I disagree with it. It's just that I think it's important to expand on it, to say that science cannot answer these questions, yet. Science, as a methodology, is not limited to the tools that we have at our disposal, at present. Many, many years from now, when we have potentially developed the tools to explore many of the things that we may now call 'paranormal', it will still be science. I think to say that science 'cannot' answer these questions is to put a cap on the potential of science. I think I can agree with you there, Onei. I considered saying "yet," but didn't want to muddle things too much. I don't know about proving or disproving something like God, but I think for example shared dreaming or OBEs for example are things that we may be able to understand and even verify (or disprove) eventually.

[Baron Samedi]

When I was a kid, my cousin told me he would go back into a dream he was just having, and continue it. I had never heard of this. I didn't believe him, because I tried it before with no results. When I got older, I started trying to do it again, and it worked.

[Oneironaut Zero]

When I was a kid, my cousin told me he would go back into a dream he was just having, and continue it. I had never heard of this. I didn't believe him, because I tried it before with no results. When I got older, I started trying to do it again, and it worked. Is the conclusion you're alluding to that this outcome is the same, for all things? For instance; since you had never tried dream re-entry, and then you gave it a shot and it worked, does that mean that if I keep trying to cause a micro black hole to appear in front of me, it's likely to happen? Not really trying to be argumentative here, but I'm simply trying to understand whether or not that's the point you're trying to make.

[Aaeull]

I very much liked how you ended it -- "All us fuckers could be lying." So funny. Also, I agree that Beyond Dreaming is for people who want to do useful things with our time - Not for people who want to argue about whether this or that exists. For those people, try the Newbie Zone or Attaining Lucidity. (hehe)

[Baron Samedi]

Is the conclusion you're alluding to that this outcome is the same, for all things? For instance; since you had never tried dream re-entry, and then you gave it a shot and it worked, does that mean that if I keep trying to cause a micro black hole to appear in front of me, it's likely to happen? Not really trying to be argumentative here, but I'm simply trying to understand whether or not that's the point you're trying to make. Nothing is the same for all things. My point is that even though I didn't have scientific evidence, I tried it based on my cousin's word. I believed him because he's my family and I trust him. It's up to the individual to judge for themselves how my time and energy they want to spend attempting a skill or feat some may deem psionics, psychic, paranormal, magic, or impossible. My point is that if you are curious about something, try it instead of pouring energy into arguing about whether you think it's true or not. If you are not curious about something, why argue about it? Maybe to save people's time by convincing them something isn't true? That may be a worthy cause. Or it might be a waste of time and energy. It's easier to prove or disprove something to yourself than it is to do it to someone else, especially when speaking of things that seem unquantifiable. I suggest reading Entangled Minds by Dean Radin. He is a scientist that researches the paranormal.

[Baron Samedi]

I very much liked how you ended it -- "All us fuckers could be lying." So funny. Also, I agree that Beyond Dreaming is for people who want to do useful things with our time - Not for people who want to argue about whether this or that exists. For those people, try the Newbie Zone or Attaining Lucidity. (hehe) Thank you for articulating what I was trying to say in a more succinct manner.

[sloth]

I fully accept the possibility of magic, and I have even worked out in my head how it would possibly work, based on the laws of physics (taking advantage of certain principals, maybe even metaphysical qualities of matter and energy that we do not yet understand). However, I do not have the conviction and a strong enough belief to exert the amount of attention, time, and effort needed to make any kind of magic work. Plus I think I have run out of hat rabbits.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Nothing is the same for all things. My point is that even though I didn't have scientific evidence, I tried it based on my cousin's word. I believed him because he's my family and I trust him. It's up to the individual to judge for themselves how my time and energy they want to spend attempting a skill or feat some may deem psionics, psychic, paranormal, magic, or impossible. My point is that if you are curious about something, try it instead of pouring energy into arguing about whether you think it's true or not. If you are not curious about something, why argue about it? Maybe to save people's time by convincing them something isn't true? That may be a worthy cause. Or it might be a waste of time and energy. It's easier to prove or disprove something to yourself than it is to do it to someone else, especially when speaking of things that seem unquantifiable. Arguments against the existence of these phenomena are just as fair as arguments toward them (which this thread is). So why is it that it's ok for people to present their theories as to why what they are experiencing might be something truly 'paranormal,' but not ok for others to present theories as to why they might be something else? I suggest reading Entangled Minds by Dean Radin. He is a scientist that researches the paranormal. I have read (and posted much here, on Dream Views) of Dean Radin. In fact, his work is one of the main reasons I so purposefully maintain the believe in the possibility of such phenomena. I have not read Entangled Minds, but I know enough about Quantum Entanglement and many of the proposed evidences for a collective consciousness, if it has anything to do with that. My point is that, even though I'm open-minded enough to believe in the 'well, it could be' possibility of many of these things, it doesn't mean I'm blind to the setbacks in logically reaching the conclusion that they are explicitly real.

[Atras]

Arguments against the existence of these phenomena are just as fair as arguments toward them (which this thread is). So why is it that it's ok for people to present their theories as to why what they are experiencing might be something truly 'paranormal,' but not ok for others to present theories as to why they might be something else? I have read (and posted much here, on Dream Views) of Dean Radin. In fact, his work is one of the main reasons I so purposefully maintain the believe in the possibility of such phenomena. I have not read Entangled Minds, but I know enough about Quantum Entanglement and many of the proposed evidences for a collective consciousness, if it has anything to do with that. My point is that, even though I'm open-minded enough to believe in the 'well, it could be' possibility of many of these things, it doesn't mean I'm blind to the setbacks in logically reaching the conclusion that they are explicitly real. I dont think he's saying you can't say your own opinion, but that instead of constantly arguing, you should at least try it before you say its not true. Can't know until you try. Think about it from Nomad's pov. He believes he has shared dreams and people are always constantly telling him that theres no such thing and that hes wrong and such when they themselves havent even tried or put enough effort into trying. Going back to his example, you cant say sex doesnt feel good if you havent even had sex.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I dont think he's saying you can't say your own opinion, but that instead of constantly arguing, you should at least try it before you say its not true. Can't know until you try. Think about it from Nomad's pov. He believes he has shared dreams and people are always constantly telling him that theres no such thing and that hes wrong and such when they themselves havent even tried or put enough effort into trying. Going back to his example, you cant say sex doesnt feel good if you havent even had sex. Ah. In that case, I can understand where he would be coming from. I simply don't like the notion that people aren't welcome to offer their opinion on such a thing, if it goes against those that believe the phenomena are real. I have heard many claims to that end, around here, but if that's not what Nomad is saying, then I withdraw my point.