Thread: Shared Dreaming Debate

Gills covers it nicely.
I don't think I have time to jump into this 12 page debate completely, so I'll just explain my views. (But then again, I have a tendency to get sucked into things)

I don't believe shared dreaming is real, and I don't think that Dreamviews presents sufficient evidence to lead me to believe that it is real. Therefore I continue to believe that it is not real.

You may ask: Why do you choose to "Believe that it is NOT real", rather than simply "Not believe that it IS real". (Subtle differences here).

When I say that I don't believe that it IS real, I am basically saying: "I have not seen convincing evidence of its existence, but it seems possible, and I will not discount the possibility of it actually being real". For example. I don't believe that there is life on mars. I don't think that the new rover is going to find anything, but I don't discount that it actually could, and I wouldn't be surprised if it DID.

When I say that I do believe that it is NOT real, I am basically saying: "I have not seen convincing evidence of its existence, and it seems impossible, so I discount the possibility of it actually being real." This is my stand on Dream Sharing. When I think about how it would work, I cannot find an explanation that is within the realm of science. And I've not noticed many things that can circumvent the laws of physics.

So, that being said... if Dream Sharing was proven to be true, I would be BLOWN AWAY. Totally surprised that it was actually true, because all of my logic and research had suggested otherwise.

EDIT:
Why is "No, it's impossible" italicized in the poll? There appears to be some sort of emphasis that is used when saying those words. A kind of emphasis that does not exist with the other choices. Such a subtle thing to notice, lol. But it can't just be for the hell of it... Is this based upon your idealistic depiction of someone who does not believe in shared dreaming? That they are more emphasized than the other folks? Lol.

Originally Posted by DreiHundert

Gills covers it nicely.
I don't think I have time to jump into this 12 page debate completely, so I'll just explain my views. (But then again, I have a tendency to get sucked into things)

I don't believe shared dreaming is real, and I don't think that Dreamviews presents sufficient evidence to lead me to believe that it is real. Therefore I continue to believe that it is not real.

You may ask: Why do you choose to "Believe that it is NOT real", rather than simply "Not believe that it IS real". (Subtle differences here).

When I say that I don't believe that it IS real, I am basically saying: "I have not seen convincing evidence of its existence, but it seems possible, and I will not discount the possibility of it actually being real". For example. I don't believe that there is life on mars. I don't think that the new rover is going to find anything, but I don't discount that it actually could, and I wouldn't be surprised if it DID.

When I say that I do believe that it is NOT real, I am basically saying: "I have not seen convincing evidence of its existence, and it seems impossible, so I discount the possibility of it actually being real." This is my stand on Dream Sharing. When I think about how it would work, I cannot find an explanation that is within the realm of science. And I've not noticed many things that can circumvent the laws of physics.

So, that being said... if Dream Sharing was proven to be true, I would be BLOWN AWAY. Totally surprised that it was actually true, because all of my logic and research had suggested otherwise.

EDIT:
Why is "No, it's impossible" italicized in the poll? Lol. I can only imagine the emphasis that OP was imagining when he decided to emphasize that answer lololol

This is more of a personal question, would you not find that having this philosophy stops you from truly experiencing life?
You are limiting your experiences, you should focus on using things in life if they work and note how they work. What if in a hypotetical situation you happened to have a shared dream but dismissed because of your beliefs instead of profiting and learning how to develop the skill.
What if people didn't know how dreams worked or if they really existed. Would you believe that they are not real because no one could explain them or would you rather leave that oportunity open so you could gain from them if they ever happened to you.

This is more of a personal question, would you not find that having this philosophy stops you from truly experiencing life?

How would this prevent someone from enjoying/experiencing life?

Originally Posted by melanieb

How would this prevent someone from enjoying/experiencing life?

Well he states that he is more inclined to dismiss dream sharing then be at a midpoint between believing and not believing. He is assuming that because of lack of evidence and the occult nature of dream sharing that it is most likely impossible. But what if did happen to have a shared dream? or something similar,
I personally like to believe that it is neither true or fals to me currently, once I experience or happen to come across it I will try reproduce the effect, without the thought of how it works or why.
Imagine if I happen to be able to use it. I just find that dismissing an idea that is not completely outrageous is not a wise thing to do because for all you know one day something like this could happen to you.

^^ I doubt that would keep anyone from experiencing life or enjoying life to its fullest.

We all have ideas that we include or dismiss until we have direct observation that influences our perceptions.

I have never experienced a shared dream but I allow for the possibility. Still, it seems unlikely I wouldn't be able to experience life if I was steadfastly against the idea of shared-dreaming or other subjective experiences.

Originally Posted by Chimpertainment

That reminds me of Pilate asking Jesus the same question. What is truth? I am certainly not advocating that we assume shared dreaming is real because someone says as much.

When alleged shared dreamers want people not to demand any evidence, then this is irrational and hypocritical. As simple as that.

And it's funny that many of these same alleged shared dreamers demand proof from theists, to scientifically prove God.

Please let's not get into this again. I am (literally) tired of typing the same things over and over.

What I like to avoid is automatically dismissing those same people because their experiences seem ridiculous. Many times, the experience of a person is valid while their interpretation of the experience is in question.
What I see you doing Gills, is intentionally seeking out shared dreaming discussions throughout this forum and attempting to throw it off track or dissolve it completely into tirades about how we can know what we know.
Perhaps you are just confused and you are angry that everyone is not as confused as you. I say this because I know the feeling. Are people really missing something when they believe something that is not scientifically verifiable? Why shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy their experience and explore its individual veracity? All I see you doing is immediately dismissing someone because their experience fits into the "unprovable" category.

This is complete nonsense. I only get pissed off when 1.) someone tries to present shared dreaming as a fact, and 2.) someone gets mad at a skeptic for demanding evidence for shared dreaming.

Of course, I have already said this in other ways before, I just feel the need to defend this thread again because of your determined blind faith in proof.
If we never imagine what is possible, we will never discover the impossible. And as soon as you place burden of proof on the imagination, you have lost your humanity.

I have the ability to breathe underwater. Do you believe me? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by debrajane

Gills

Please look at this

Paragraph 25

The odds against two complete strangers on the same night, geologically separated by 500 miles, dreaming of being on a boat cutting open a fish and having the face of the fish turning into a bloody man's face are astronomical, and that both dreamers specifically mentioned flounder seems to argue against any notion that the correspondences are a chance occurrence.

It is post #62 on this thread:

What are Your Thoughts on This?

My thoughts on this are very simple. I see no evidence that this event occurred, because it hasn't been done in a controlled study where the two dreamers are isolated and separately questioned by individuals overseeing the experiment. I'll be short and to the point: Unless I see a controlled study in which one dreamer can transfer a simple password to the other dreamer, I will refuse to believe in shared dreaming.

On another note, please don't derail this thread. If you want to discuss shared dreaming, go here: http://www.dreamviews.com/f19/shared...debate-120211/

Let's keep this one on topic please.

Here's some good info on shared dreaming, instead of debating Shared Dreaming - Real life Inception, page 1
http://dreamdoze.com/can-people-share-dreams/

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

Real quick.

No password involved, but a decent case study on the subject: - Google Scholar

You'll have to hit up a library or database if you want to read it for "free."

As there is no password involved, the study is unreliable and essentially worthless. All we have is the two individuals telling stories that match one another. How does this show evidence of shared dreaming?

Absolutely no evidence of anything. Even I could do much better, with me and my wife memorizing several made-up dreams in detail, and then going into a study.

And again, please keep the thread on-topic. For shared dreaming debates, use this: http://www.dreamviews.com/f19/shared...debate-120211/

This is also interesting, i love coast 2 coast stuffC2CAM - Criminal Profiling & Active Dreaming - Coast To Coast AM - YouTube it also covers about shared dreaming on the later half.
I would skip to 1:00hrs to listen to interesting topics as well for criminal profiling. Active dreaming is 17 mins after 1:00hrs.

WOW hathor28

Originally Posted by hathor28

This is also interesting i love coast 2 coast stuffC2CAM - Criminal Profiling & Active Dreaming - Coast To Coast AM - YouTube it also covers about shared dreaming on the later half.

I would skip to 1:00hrs to listen to interesting topics as well for criminal profiling.

Thank you, I will soon open a thread to transcribe the stuff I like from the Robert Moss interview.

Thanx a million hathor28.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

The earth's magnetic field can move charged particles like electrons, but the field itself won't transfer information between people. It would be like using the sound of the wind in trees to communicate. You can make sound, such as with your voice, but the background noise doesn't help, it's just something extra to be separated from the noise you want to hear. Using electromagnetics to communicate amounts to sending light or radio waves from your brain.

The biggest problem with that, or with using charged particles, is extracting the desired information. It's exactly like trying to see your reflection in a shag carpet, except much harder because the mixing is much greater and the signal is much weaker. This difficulty eliminates the possibility all by itself, as I see it, but here are a couple of other things that don't fit. Electromagnetics effects generally decline in strength in proportion to square of distance. If you could share thought with someone 2000 miles away, you would be blinded by the thought of someone ten feet from you, because the signal would be a trillion times stronger. Yet it seems that distance makes little difference, except insofar as it influences where you put your attention. Also, some people report precognitive effects when sharing thought, and electromagnetics doesn't work for that.

As usual, Shadowofwind, your extensive knowledge is dowsing yet another cool theory with waves of pesky facts!

In spite of that, I'd like to add a metaphor to your description and Chimpertainment's above response to you, just to see what you think:

Instead of assuming that thought-energy is electromagnetic in nature, what if we assumed it was composed of something else, perhaps a form of energy that exists outside of our current definitions, and one that cannot join with electromagnetic current but can be influenced by it?

Then, instead of using the magnetosphere as a conductor of thought-energy, what if you considered it a great moving ocean of electromagnetic energy -- a potential purveyor of thought-energy, blowing our thoughts around like the wind moves leaves? And what if you considered that we could "rig" our conscious thought-forms like sails that could be spread before the "wind" of that ocean and moved, under our control, from place to place and person to person?

In fewer words, perhaps the thought-energy created by our conscious minds in our dreams (and waking life) is a separate sort of energy than electromagnetic, and therefore can be pushed around by it, just as the wind moves sailboats. So we wouldn't be trying to make sense of the wind as it blows through the trees, we'd be riding it.

This seems a simple, if remarkably farfetched solution to using the magnetosphere for transfer of thoughts and dream-sharing. But it would bypass your amplification problem, I think. Also, it would allow for transfer of thoughts anywhere, at near light speed. Who knows? the precognitive stuff might even be a bi-product of the interaction!

Of course, navigation, exchange of information (aka changing thought energy into something your dream-sharing partner can understand), and the recipient actually paying attention, which still would amount to dipping your tongue in the ocean and tasting one particular drop, are still very difficult hurdles to targeted dream-sharing.

Any thoughts?

If I believed In shared dreaming then I would say that It most likely has to do with quantum physics, or possibly fancy extra-dimensional stuff..
We know for a fact that particles can be used to carry and calculate at least very basic information (Quantum computing anyone?), along with other brain phenomena our brains may be able to sense and or use a method of picking up on information from other people, perhaps electrons with quantum entanglement.
OR it may use some type of radiation, specially if you take into account Emoto's research on thought and water crystals, iff thoughts/ideas can manipulate water there's no reason they cant change other things

Originally Posted by Gills

I have the ability to breathe underwater. Do you believe me? If not, why not?

I believe you Gills! Why would I doubt you? While I have never really done this, I have witnessed people doing this first hand. In fact, I witnessed no less than 2 dozen people doing this in Hawaii. They will actually teach you how to do it, for as little as $200-

Originally Posted by melanieb

^^ I doubt that would keep anyone from experiencing life or enjoying life to its fullest.

We all have ideas that we include or dismiss until we have direct observation that influences our perceptions.

I have never experienced a shared dream but I allow for the possibility. Still, it seems unlikely I wouldn't be able to experience life if I was steadfastly against the idea of shared-dreaming or other subjective experiences.

Well you are taking what I am saying as if it's a either enjoy or don't situation. I am just saying that by leaving open possibilities one day he might be able to benefit from, it doesn't have to be a life changing, it can be as small as making him more calm throughout the day, maybe. Obviously if you leaves more doors open you'll have more paths to choose.

I ain't great evidence, but these guys are well known and they have a bit of a laugh but this seems more than just a similarity. I'm not gonna convince anyone anyways (still have to convince myself) but I thought it was cool none the less.

Originally Posted by Gills

When alleged shared dreamers want people not to demand any evidence, then this is irrational and hypocritical. As simple as that.

And it's funny that many of these same alleged shared dreamers demand proof from theists, to scientifically prove God.

Please let's not get into this again. I am (literally) tired of typing the same things over and over.

Seeing that you have not seen anything that satisfies you in the way of evidence; why do you continue to demand for it? Instead, reminding people repeatedly how their experience does not satisfy your standard. This stifles any conversation about what those experiences were, or how they came to be, or for what purpose they may exist.

Is it not good to discuss how something might occur? Let us suspend judgment for just a while, as a true skeptic does, while some facts are presented. The world is full of uncertainty and reality is based upon principles of probability.

There is no proof of shared dreaming anywhere in your mind, and that's fine to me..I just want people to be able to talk about their experiences a while before being slapped and told its all fake.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Then, instead of using the magnetosphere as a conductor of thought-energy, what if you considered it a great moving ocean of electromagnetic energy -- a potential purveyor of thought-energy, blowing our thoughts around like the wind moves leaves? And what if you considered that we could "rig" our conscious thought-forms like sails that could be spread before the "wind" of that ocean and moved, under our control, from place to place and person to person?...This seems a simple, if remarkably farfetched solution to using the magnetosphere for transfer of thoughts and dream-sharing. But it would bypass your amplification problem, I think. Also, it would allow for transfer of thoughts anywhere, at near light speed. Who knows? the precognitive stuff might even be a bi-product of the interaction!

Some good stuff! I was just watching a youtube video with Brian Greene on quantum mechanics and some of the possibilities presented are very similar to this picture. Not only quantum entanglement, but also the discovery that information can travel in large quantities, and yet very small sizes.

According to quantum theory, observation is key. Which strikes me as deeply profound, and also definitely impacting in terms of dreams. Everything we place attention to and place intention upon is being effected. It makes me wonder who/what counts as an observer? Is everything experiencing everything else subjectively in total synchronicity?


I like that idea about pre-cog. For some reason, I think it would be something like a result of resonance. Like a wave bouncing off a wall, except the wall would be the space/time continuum....



In other news: If the information is transferred, how would the mind identify it in any form? Some kind of familiarity would need to be established with corresponding sensory data. Would one use sound, sight, smell, touch, taste? Could one use any of these sensory "triggers" to associate with another person? Or perhaps a consecutive code of sensory input. For example: blue apple-taste of cinnamon-core of red light. It would be like a password in metaphorical terms. Could one use the existing archetypal imagery to create unique identifiers? Or maybe we already have them... oooo...

Originally Posted by Mindraker

Again, we have to wait and see what the results are. The experiment isn't complete yet. Please feel free to contribute.

I wasn't referring to your experiment. My post had nothing to do with this particular thread.

I was replying to debrajane and Mzzkc.

Originally Posted by Chimpertainment

Seeing that you have not seen anything that satisfies you in the way of evidence; why do you continue to demand for it? Instead, reminding people repeatedly how their experience does not satisfy your standard. This stifles any conversation about what those experiences were, or how they came to be, or for what purpose they may exist.

Is it not good to discuss how something might occur? Let us suspend judgment for just a while, as a true skeptic does, while some facts are presented. The world is full of uncertainty and reality is based upon principles of probability.

There is no proof of shared dreaming anywhere in your mind, and that's fine to me..I just want people to be able to talk about their experiences a while before being slapped and told its all fake.

Nicely said!

What do you think, Gills (and Hathor, Dutchraptor, Dreihundert, etc)? Maybe we could all step off the "Is Not!" "Is Too!" carousel and enjoy a debate about potentials, possibilities, explanations, and, yes, possible fantasies that would accompany shared-dreaming if it were to exist? To me that is much more fun and enlightening than the endless rounds of accusations, insults, and umbrage into which so many of us lock ourselves. I know I'm not a moderator and certainly have no place to make this request, but it would be real nice to finally have a conversation about shared dreaming without seeing it derailed every five posts by the usual empty nonsense ... maybe we could avoid the "old and ridiculous," label Mzzkc aptly applied above, and seek the new and interesting? Wouldn't that make the debate more true to the OP as well?

That said, back to the excellent stuff Chimpertainment brought up:

Some good stuff! I was just watching a youtube video with Brian Greene on quantum mechanics and some of the possibilities presented are very similar to this picture. Not only quantum entanglement, but also the discovery that information can travel in large quantities, and yet very small sizes. According to quantum theory, observation is key. Which strikes me as deeply profound, and also definitely impacting in terms of dreams. Everything we place attention to and place intention upon is being effected. It makes me wonder who/what counts as an observer? Is everything experiencing everything else subjectively in total synchronicity?

I think the real profundity here, in regard to shared-dreaming anyway, comes with paying attention. Yes, the question of observation defining reality itself is a deep one, and does matter, but I think in this thread's context it is paying attention that matters.

Why? It might sound like another way of saying "observation," I suppose, but I think "paying attention" might mean something more, because when you observe a thing you are choosing what to see, and judgments/measurements/qualifications/etc are made empirically based on almost prefabricated focus. But attention is more a state of opening up your self-awareness to your surroundings, allowing it to absorb and interpret not just the things you expect, but the surprises as well. In the case of shared-dreaming, one must be attentive to the oddest of oddities, and tiniest of ripples, lest you miss a visit from a fellow dreamer. I could go on for another thousand words about this, but I think you get the idea: It isn't just the observation, it is the flexibility and openness of the observer (and observee, I suppose) that is critical in shared-dreaming.

I like that idea about pre-cog. For some reason, I think it would be something like a result of resonance. Like a wave bouncing off a wall, except the wall would be the space/time continuum....

My thoughts exactly! Once again you clarified my clumsy blather quite nicely; thanks!

In other news: If the information is transferred, how would the mind identify it in any form? Some kind of familiarity would need to be established with corresponding sensory data. Would one use sound, sight, smell, touch, taste? Could one use any of these sensory "triggers" to associate with another person? Or perhaps a consecutive code of sensory input. For example: blue apple-taste of cinnamon-core of red light. It would be like a password in metaphorical terms. Could one use the existing archetypal imagery to create unique identifiers? Or maybe we already have them... oooo...

This I have always thought is the true difficulty of shared-dreaming! I have a feeling that archetypical imagery is universal enough that metaphor could easily be produced to ease communication, but how do we know that the image we're presenting to our shared-dreaming partner is perceived as planned? I might send you an image of, say, an apple, but you might perceive that image as, say, a fire hydrant. Our thoughts, perceptions, expectations are so different, even with common archetypes in hand, that it seems to me almost impossible to think of a message, convert it into thought energy, send that thought energy across the aether to our target dreamer, and then have them spot and receive that thought, and then not only convert it to an image but an image that even remotely resembles what was originally sent.

Now, this might sound terribly negative and insurmountable, but if you think about it, we already sort of do this with language in waking life. Indeed, by typing this post I'm doing a thing that would not only have been utterly unimaginable 2 centuries ago, but would have been laughed off as fantasy, magic, or blind faith. Yet here I am. Perhaps this method of transferring thought does already exist -- we simply haven't noticed it yet. Perhaps more attention needs to be paid?

Originally Posted by Gills

I wasn't referring to your experiment. My post had nothing to do with this particular thread.

I was replying to debrajane and Mzzkc.

No offense intended, no offense taken. Our posts got a little jumbled.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Nicely said!

What do you think, Gills (and Hathor, Dutchraptor, Dreihundert, etc)? Maybe we could all step off the "Is Not!" "Is Too!" carousel and enjoy a debate about potentials, possibilities, explanations, and, yes, possible fantasies that would accompany shared-dreaming if it were to exist? To me that is much more fun and enlightening than the endless rounds of accusations, insults, and umbrage into which so many of us lock ourselves. I know I'm not a moderator and certainly have no place to make this request, but it would be real nice to finally have a conversation about shared dreaming without seeing it derailed every five posts by the usual empty nonsense ... maybe we could avoid the "old and ridiculous," label
I think the real profundity here, in regard to shared-dreaming anyway, comes with paying attention. Yes, the question of observation defining reality itself is a deep one, and does matter, but I think in this thread's context it is paying attention that matters.

Why? It might sound like another way of saying "observation," I suppose, but I think "paying attention" might mean something more, because when you observe a thing you are choosing what to see, and judgments/measurements/qualifications/etc are made empirically based on almost prefabricated focus. But attention is more a state of opening up your self-awareness to your surroundings, allowing it to absorb and interpret not just the things you expect, but the surprises as well. In the case of shared-dreaming, one must be attentive to the oddest of oddities, and tiniest of ripples, lest you miss a visit from a fellow dreamer. I could go on for another thousand words about this, but I think you get the idea: It isn't just the observation, it is the flexibility and openness of the observer (and observee, I suppose) that is critical in shared-dreaming.



This I have always thought is the true difficulty of shared-dreaming! I have a feeling that archetypical imagery is universal enough that metaphor could easily be produced to ease communication, but how do we know that the image we're presenting to our shared-dreaming partner is perceived as planned? I might send you an image of, say, an apple, but you might perceive that image as, say, a fire hydrant. Our thoughts, perceptions, expectations are so different, even with common archetypes in hand, that it seems to me almost impossible to think of a message, convert it into thought energy, send that thought energy across the aether to our target dreamer, and then have them spot and receive that thought, and then not only convert it to an image but an image that even remotely resembles what was originally sent.
Now, this might sound terribly negative and insurmountable, but if you think about it, we already sort of do this with language in waking life. Indeed, by typing this post I'm doing a thing that would not only have been utterly unimaginable 2 centuries ago, but would have been laughed off as fantasy, magic, or blind faith. Yet here I am. Perhaps this method of transferring thought does already exist -- we simply haven't noticed it yet. Perhaps more attention needs to be paid?

Sorry, i am not debating here, nor do i want to when someone is continuing to confuse any thread that is connected to shared dreaming.
Whenever something is started good, like a good debate or experiment, i see it keeps getting interrupted so i stopped debating and started giving information like i did at my last youtube post about coast2coast etc. I think i have to(or someone) has to start a thread about "informational" sites regarding shared dreaming.
Yes i am observing the debate but, to me it's not very welcoming to me because of certain confusions here. I am not saying stuff like "Is too"/"Is not", if i do say this, it's actually not based on the debate itself but actually correcting or making someone remember what they last said and if it made any sense, or it has been repeated many times.
That's all i can say.

I don't know how to debate.

I would like to ... just discus what many have done over the last hundred years to further our understanding of psi dreaming.

Most of my threads are transcriptions of YouTubes from scientists and folk deeply into dreaming. It's wonderful that I can watch lectures and interviews for free then publish ALL of it on a forum without getting sued.

I can't do that with books.

Youtube only began in February 2005. I came on line on March 2008.

Look at my story:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f19/debraj...7/#post1924504

(196.views)

That is what brought me on line on 1-March-2008. I didn't know anyone online and I had no one to tell my dream to except someone in Melbourne who wasn't interested anyway.

But some how I shared dreamed with a bunch of people 12,000 miles away whom I didn't know and still don't know.

I want to do psi dreaming. I wish some one would offer a very simple thingy. Simple enough for a 6 year old infant to join in (because one of me is a 6-8 year old boy).

Or

Do my share dream (psi dream) thingy:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f19/dream-...loaded-123389/

There is 8 posts in the above thread.

But I enthusiastically started my dream game here on the 25-February-2011. I thought lots of people were playing privately (not posting) so I kept it up a long, long time (there is 120 posts, mostly mine) Below is that thread:

Here is the last page (page 5)

http://www.dreamviews.com/f19/synchr...40/index5.html

What are your thoughts on my share dreaming/psi game?

Originally Posted by Sageous

Nicely said!

What do you think, Gills (and Hathor, Dutchraptor, Dreihundert, etc)? Maybe we could all step off the "Is Not!" "Is Too!" carousel and enjoy a debate about potentials, possibilities, explanations, and, yes, possible fantasies that would accompany shared-dreaming if it were to exist?

That is one of the more intelligent comments on this thread, and I thank you for it. Debating how dream sharing could work if it were to exist is completel rational, and I have no problems with it.