Thread: Shared Dreaming Debate

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

It's a coincidence that 222 keeps reappearing in my life. Another coincidence yesterday, is when I was talking about UFO's to my family last might, my uncle awoke from a dream, and said, "I just had a dream about big silvery ball in the ground. I was on a construction team, and we were trying to get it out of the soil. A big silver orb thing."

Coincidence means 2 things coinciding. My life is one big giant coincidence. It's a coincidence that after 22, 222, and 2222 keep reappearing in my life I find out I was conceived on November 22, 1974. It's a coincidence that my mom is a twin, and I was conceived on her birthday. It's also a coincidence that my ascendant birth sign is Gemini. It's a coincidence that my mom and my aunt both have four children, the first from one father, the last three from another. That's a coincidence.

Or you may be trying very hard to find "patterns" in your life, and that way you are much more likely to notice 22, 222, and 2222 appearing, than to notice 0, 239, 4938, or 239819.

On a more serious note:

Honestly, no I don't believe in shared dreaming. And if it does exist, I think it would be extremely rare, limited only to individuals with extraordinary telepathic/ESP abilities. These two "shared dreamers" would also have to be in REM sleep at the same time in order for it to work. I am not saying it cannot exist, I am simply saying I don't see any evidence for it's existence at this time. So many studies have been done on dreams, by Celia Green, Stephen LaBerge, etc., and there is no study which confirms this supposed phenomenon. It's also a bit funny to me to see all these threads on DreamViews, with people claiming they have shared dreams. Some people on DV are even claiming that they're having it on a regular basis. Something like this would actually be easy to prove if it did exist, and it would be a potential candidate for a succesful victory at the James Randi Foundation (google "randi challenge" for more info). Here's the setup:

1.) Find two experienced shared dreamers (there are supposedly many here on DreamViews).
2.) Arrange a setting where they can't communicate with one another, and make sure they fall asleep approximately at the same time, in order to be in REM around the same time.
3.) Tell subject A, to give a certain password to subject B, once they are together lucid in the dream state.

End of story. If they are for real, they'll be able to give information to one another from the dream state. So what are the shared dreamers waiting for? James Randi will give them one million dollars if they can prove it.

I don't mean to sound arrogant, since I actually believe in ESP and many other things which are "out there", so I am not a "skeptic" at all. The thing is, this shared dreaming thing annoys me very much, just because I see so many threads with people claiming they experienced it, and others claiming it's easy to experience it, and others supposedly having it on a regular basis.

I am simply being as honest as I can be. I am very annoyed when I see threads on this forum such as "The Etiquette of Shared Dreaming."

It makes me really angry. No offense intended.

Jakob

Hi Jacob,

You might be less angry if you got some more background on the discussion first. About once every two weeks someone comes in and posts the same 'test' that you did. Then people explain why it doesn't apply to what they're talking about when they speak of shared dreaming. Then a couple of weeks later it comes up again with someone else, ad nauseum. OutlawPig is the last example before you. (Though I see you've been registered for longer than me. Maybe you usually read different threads.)

There are also a number of problems with the Randi challenge, except as a device for feeling smugly superior to superstitious people. For instance, to avoid having people randomly try stuff until they get lucky and win the reward, the confidence criteria are extremely high, much higher than for most scientific studies. That's understandable, but it precludes the demonstration of difficult phenomena. You can google for other criticisms, or maybe someone less lazy than me can repost links that have been posted here before.

Also I don't understand your outrage about shared dreaming if you accept the possibility of ESP. For me that's all it is, the only difference is in the 'shared dreaming' case you're generating images from your imagination instead of from what is coming through your sense organs. Granted not everybody interprets shared dreaming in the same way, but there does seem to be some general agreement about this.

Regarding your critique of WakingNomad's pattern recognition....Your criticism here is typical also. Yes, many people aren't objective about how they recognize patterns in things. But other people are aware of the possible fallacies, and they look at them and weigh them carefully. For example, I'm not at all into numerology, but my son pointed out that my cell phone number starts with the same four digits as my address, then when I got a new job a few months later, my 5 digit employee ID matched the phone number, with two of the phone digits added/sandwiched into the middle of it. These are issued sequentially, so that's pretty hard to do. If this was the only thing like that had ever happened, then I'd attribute it to random luck. But if numerology is your thing, and you have a moderate degree of psychic development, this sort of thing can happen a lot, as in nearly every day. So although I have significant disagreements about WakingNomad about dream interpretation, and would probably disagree with WakingNomad about the significance of 2's in his life, I see no reason to doubt the claim.

Of course, its reasonable for you to doubt it if it doesn't fit with your experience and if the only people you've ever met who make such claims are objectively lying or deluded. A lot of what people are going to claim about paranormal experience is just fabrications. Unfortunately, there is good deal of overlap between the fabricators and the real psychics, because the absence of self-doubt makes the phenomena a lot easier.

If you believe that shared dreaming might be real, but that some people are twisting or exaggerating their tales of it for self-aggrandizement, maybe we should refocus the discussion on that. Maybe this is what bothers Sageous about the topic also.

Originally Posted by Jakob

1.) Find two experienced shared dreamers (there are supposedly many here on DreamViews).
2.) Arrange a setting where they can't communicate with one another, and make sure they fall asleep approximately at the same time, in order to be in REM around the same time.
3.) Tell subject A, to give a certain password to subject B, once they are together lucid in the dream state.

Unfortunately that would be extremely ineffective as we would have no idea ass to how both dreamers will interpret the dream and the password. Here is a more appropriate test
1.) Find two experienced shared dreamers
2.) Tell that once they communicate in the dream they must both perform a particular eye-movement.

If both dreamers simultaneously did the eye signal there is evidece of its existence.

Originally Posted by fennecgirl

Dreams exist within the subconscious.

This is a cultural belief.

Originally Posted by fennecgirl

tl;dr: This thread doesn't speak so much of a debate as a pro-shared-dreaming echo chamber. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but is it really what you wanted, Nomad?

It's probably because the people that absolutely do not believe in shared dreaming are in the minority.

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

It's probably because the people that absolutely do not believe in shared dreaming are in the minority.

Actually, the correct statement would be: The people on DreamViews that absolutely do not believe in shared dreaming are in the minority.

I think the real reason is that here on dreamviews when someone new pops in they decide to express their heart and soul as to how they believe that dream sharing is impossible. Over time they realise that denying its existence is just as ingnorant as stating its existence without evidence. Therefore unlike in the spirituality section we have all come to a general agreement. We are rarely trying to convince others here that their views on the subject are wrong. On the other hand go the the R/S section and the debates will never stop because no one wants to admit they are wrong.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Unfortunately that would be extremely ineffective as we would have no idea ass to how both dreamers will interpret the dream and the password. Here is a more appropriate test
1.) Find two experienced shared dreamers
2.) Tell that once they communicate in the dream they must both perform a particular eye-movement.

If both dreamers simultaneously did the eye signal there is evidece of its existence.

This is nonsense. There is nothing to "interpret" if one is given a simple assignment to remember a word and write it down after waking up.

They meet in the dream, and the rest is a piece of cake:

Subject A: There you are! Awesome, we're both lucid now.
Subject B: Ok, here we go. Let's prove it to them. What's the password he gave you?
Subject A: The password is "Buckchaser".
Subject B: Buckchaser, buckchaser, buckchaser... alright.
Subject A: See ya later.
Subject B: Bye bye.

And that's it. The experiment can be repeated once more, but the "other way around", so that the other subject has the password this time, but it isn't necessary. This would be enough for the James Randi Challenge, so I don't understand why these hundreds if not thousands of shared dreamers do not want to be rich.

In any case, similar eye-movements can be written off as coincidences, but if the two dreamers can transfer passwords such as (for example) "Buckchaser", or "Fox 88" or "Dream 97", then this is 100% proof.

Jakob

Originally Posted by Jakob

Actually, the correct statement would be: The people on DreamViews that absolutely do not believe in shared dreaming are in the minority.

Exactly! To be honest, I would expect almost all serious neuroscientists to find the idea very very implausible.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I think the real reason is that here on dreamviews when someone new pops in they decide to express their heart and soul as to how they believe that dream sharing is impossible. Over time they realise that denying its existence is just as ingnorant as stating its existence without evidence. Therefore unlike in the spirituality section we have all come to a general agreement. We are rarely trying to convince others here that their views on the subject are wrong. On the other hand go the the R/S section and the debates will never stop because no one wants to admit they are wrong.

Oh please. It is on the shared dreamers to prove their case and show evidence for it's existence. A simple "me and my friend did it a million times" or "we gave passwords to one another" isn't good enough. The fact of the matter is: There is no study in the world, not by Celia Green, or Stephen LaBerge, or any other respected dream/lucid dream researcher, which has shown evidence for the existence of shared dreaming.

No one is saying it "cannot" exist. At least I'm not saying that. I am simply saying: At this time there is no evidence for it, except claims on internet forums.

Jakob

Originally Posted by Jakob

This is nonsense. There is nothing to "interpret" if one is given a simple assignment to remember a word and write it down after waking up.

They meet in the dream, and the rest is a piece of cake:

Subject A: There you are! Awesome, we're both lucid now.
Subject B: Ok, here we go. Let's prove it to them. What's the password he gave you?
Subject A: The password is "Buckchaser".
Subject B: Buckchaser, buckchaser, buckchaser... alright.
Subject A: See ya later.
Subject B: Bye bye.

And that's it. The experiment can be repeated once more, but the "other way around", so that the other subject has the password this time, but it isn't necessary. This would be enough for the James Randi Challenge, so I don't understand why these hundreds if not thousands of shared dreamers do not want to be rich.

In any case, similar eye-movements can be written off as coincidences, but if the two dreamers can transfer passwords such as (for example) "Buckchaser", or "Fox 88" or "Dream 97", then this is 100% proof.

Jakob

Your knowledge on the subject is obviously minute, firstly by stating that both dreamers will interpret the dream exactly the same you are stating that you as a disbeliever know exactly how the brain forms dreams and how it would go about sharing. If two people in a room both hear a sound they will probably interpret it differently in their dream. Who or what is telling you that this is different in a dream. How do you know how much control we would have in a shared dream. You act like your some kind of scholar on the subject but you really have no opinion on why or why not this could even work. Were here to assess different ways in which dream sharing could be possible not to listen to some ignorant idiot who has no idea about the complexity of neuroscience.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

Hi Jacob,

You might be less angry if you got some more background on the discussion first. About once every two weeks someone comes in and posts the same 'test' that you did. Then people explain why it doesn't apply to what they're talking about when they speak of shared dreaming. Then a couple of weeks later it comes up again with someone else, ad nauseum. OutlawPig is the last example before you. (Though I see you've been registered for longer than me. Maybe you usually read different threads.)

This is ridiculous. People on an internet forum claiming they exchanged "passwords" in a dream is not the same as a controlled study. I can't believe you are making this comparison.

There are also a number of problems with the Randi challenge, except as a device for feeling smugly superior to superstitious people.

If I were psychic, or a shared dreamer (which is essentially the same thing), I'd be the first in line to prove those a$$holes wrong.

For instance, to avoid having people randomly try stuff until they get lucky and win the reward, the confidence criteria are extremely high, much higher than for most scientific studies. That's understandable, but it precludes the demonstration of difficult phenomena. You can google for other criticisms, or maybe someone less lazy than me can repost links that have been posted here before.

Someone who has psychic abilities won't have any problem meeting the challenge. If you have the slightest telekinetic power to move a psi-wheel in a controlled setting, you will win the money. The same goes for remote reading, telepathy, and so on and so forth.

Also I don't understand your outrage about shared dreaming if you accept the possibility of ESP.

The outrage is in the fact that there is no evidence for shared dreaming at this time. No studies have confirmed this phenomenon that supposedly every 3rd or 4th DreamViews poster can induce at will.

On the other hand, there have been controlled studies in which telekinetic abilities have been demonstrated. These people (for example: Nina Kulagina), aren't alive today to meet the Randi Challenge.

For me that's all it is, the only difference is in the 'shared dreaming' case you're generating images from your imagination instead of from what is coming through your sense organs. Granted not everybody interprets shared dreaming in the same way, but there does seem to be some general agreement about this.

Pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo that has little value. First we need controlled studies which support it's existence, and then you can tell me about "how it works."

In other words: We need to see that it does work in the first place. And simple claims about doing it aren't good enough.

Regarding your critique of WakingNomad's pattern recognition....Your criticism here is typical also. Yes, many people aren't objective about how they recognize patterns in things. But other people are aware of the possible fallacies, and they look at them and weigh them carefully. For example, I'm not at all into numerology, but my son pointed out that my cell phone number starts with the same four digits as my address, then when I got a new job a few months later, my 5 digit employee ID matched the phone number, with two of the phone digits added/sandwiched into the middle of it. These are issued sequentially, so that's pretty hard to do. If this was the only thing like that had ever happened, then I'd attribute it to random luck. But if numerology is your thing, and you have a moderate degree of psychic development, this sort of thing can happen a lot, as in nearly every day. So although I have significant disagreements about WakingNomad about dream interpretation, and would probably disagree with WakingNomad about the significance of 2's in his life, I see no reason to doubt the claim.

Are you saying these patterns are evidence of psychic abilities?

Of course, its reasonable for you to doubt it if it doesn't fit with your experience and if the only people you've ever met who make such claims are objectively lying or deluded. A lot of what people are going to claim about paranormal experience is just fabrications. Unfortunately, there is good deal of overlap between the fabricators and the real psychics, because the absence of self-doubt makes the phenomena a lot easier.

I believe in the paranormal. Lots of it. I also believe shared dreaming might exist.

I just don't see an evidence for it at this time. Forum posts with people claiming they have it are really meaningless to me.

If you believe that shared dreaming might be real, but that some people are twisting or exaggerating their tales of it for self-aggrandizement, maybe we should refocus the discussion on that. Maybe this is what bothers Sageous about the topic also.

Yeah, I believe it might be real. I already said that. But until I see a good study on it, I refuse to believe these tons of DreamViews users who are writing spectacular tales of shared dreaming adventures.

Best wishes,
Jakob

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Your knowledge on the subject is obviously minute, firstly by stating that both dreamers will interpret the dream exactly the same you are stating that you as a disbeliever know exactly how the brain forms dreams and how it would go about sharing. If two people in a room both hear a sound they will probably interpret it differently in their dream. Who or what is telling you that this is different in a dream. How do you know how much control we would have in a shared dream. You act like your some kind of scholar on the subject but you really have no opinion on why or why not this could even work. Were here to assess different ways in which dream sharing could be possible not to listen to some ignorant idiot who has no idea about the complexity of neuroscience.

I had to laugh after reading this. Really. If Subject A is unable to pass one single word to Subject B in a dream, then it is very unlikely that they are sharing one and the same dream. They are most likely simply dreaming of one another. I am able to recall clear conversations I have with dream characters, sometimes even word for word, and I'm not the only one, yet you are telling me it would be difficult for the shared dreamers to remember one single password? What an excuse, oh my God.

Because what you are doing now basically, is redefining what shared dreaming really is, in an attempt to make it "real", yet "unsuitable" for a controlled study. I do accept the fact that there could be minor differences between the two dreamer's stories, such as Subject A sees a blue wall instead of a purple wall, or Subject A sees stormy clouds and Subject B sees normal clouds, or Subject A's dream is more "vivid" than Subject B's dream, or Subject A hears sounds clearer than Subject B, but overall, passing one simple word to the other person shouldn't be a problem. Even if Subject A hears "Buckchanger" instead of "Buckchaser", it would still show evidence for shared dreaming.

What you are doing, on the other hand, is redefining shared dreaming. You are basically saying the two subjects can dream of each other in different ways, without the ability to exchange information. You want to take a normal dream where Subject A dreams of Subject B, and slap the "shared dream" label on it. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable.

If he can't remember a simple word, then at least their stories should be able to match one another at least 90%, in terms of dream setting. But then again, as I said earlier, if I can recall clear sentences and conversations I've had with many dream characters, then shared dreamers shouldn't have difficulties recalling one single word. If he says he heard "Buckchanger" instead of "Buckchaser", that's fine with me. If he says he heard "Bugcatcher", I'd probably accept that as well. But if he says he heard "Tomato", then we have a problem.

People can recall dreams in the highest detail, recall pictures they see on a wall, recall sentences/words they read, and remember lenghty conversations word for word, yet your two shared dreaming subjects won't be able to recall one single word, because of... "complex neuroscience" ?

The excuses are just too lame. And resorting to ad-hominem attacks ("ignorant idiot") doesn't help your case either.

Jakob

Originally Posted by Jakob

I had to laugh after reading this. Really. If Subject A is unable to pass one single word to Subject B in a dream, then it is very unlikely that they are sharing one and the same dream. They are most likely simply dreaming of one another. I am able to recall clear conversations I have with dream characters, sometimes even word for word, and I'm not the only one, yet you are telling me it would be difficult for the shared dreamers to remember one single password? What an excuse, oh my God.

Because what you are doing now basically, is redefining what shared dreaming really is, in an attempt to make it "real", yet "unsuitable" for a controlled study. I do accept the fact that there could be minor differences between the two dreamer's stories, such as Subject A sees a blue wall instead of a purple wall, or Subject A sees stormy clouds and Subject B sees normal clouds, or Subject A's dream is more "vivid" than Subject B's dream, or Subject A hears sounds clearer than Subject B, but overall, passing one simple word to the other person shouldn't be a problem. Even if Subject A hears "Buckchanger" instead of "Buckchaser", it would still show evidence for shared dreaming.

What you are doing, on the other hand, is redefining shared dreaming. You are basically saying the two subjects can dream of each other in different ways, without the ability to exchange information. You want to take a normal dream where Subject A dreams of Subject B, and slap the "shared dream" label on it. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable.

If he can't remember a simple word, then at least their stories should be able to match one another at least 90%, in terms of dream setting. But then again, as I said earlier, if I can recall clear sentences and conversations I've had with many dream characters, then shared dreamers shouldn't have difficulties recalling one single word. If he says he heard "Buckchanger" instead of "Buckchaser", that's fine with me. If he says he heard "Bugcatcher", I'd probably accept that as well. But if he says he heard "Tomato", then we have a problem.

People can recall dreams in the highest detail, recall pictures they see on a wall, recall sentences/words they read, and remember lenghty conversations word for word, yet your two shared dreaming subjects won't be able to recall one single word, because of... "complex neuroscience" ?

The excuses are just too lame. And resorting to ad-hominem attacks ("ignorant idiot") doesn't help your case either.

Jakob

And yet you completely fail to see the point being made. Wether it is unlikely or not we have no idea of how dream sharing could possibly work. We don't know if the dreamers can communicate, wether they interpret the dream the same, where the shared dream is held etc etc.
I actually don't believe that dream sharing is possible but I don't act like I know because no one does. You consistently act like you know how it works but none of us really do. How can you say for sure that if both dreamers don't hear the same word the dream was not shared.
I really don't give a crap wether you believe in it or not but don't insult the opinions of others that do by posting a solution to prove one possible way out of hundreds wether dream sharing is possible. Even if your test supposedly worked it wouldn't prove that dream sharing exists, it would just indicate that there is a high possibility.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

And yet you completely fail to see the point being made. Wether it is unlikely or not we have no idea of how dream sharing could possibly work. We don't know if the dreamers can communicate, wether they interpret the dream the same, where the shared dream is held etc etc.
I actually don't believe that dream sharing is possible but I don't act like I know because no one does. You consistently act like you know how it works but none of us really do. How can you say for sure that if both dreamers don't hear the same word the dream was not shared.
I really don't give a crap wether you believe in it or not but don't insult the opinions of others that do by posting a solution to prove one possible way out of hundreds wether dream sharing is possible. Even if your test supposedly worked it wouldn't prove that dream sharing exists, it would just indicate that there is a high possibility.

First we need to know if it is possible at all, and then worry about the "how". My study would actually show evidence for it beyond a reasonable doubt. A study in which two people, separated from one another with no physical means of communication, recall the same dream, and recall a password. This would confirm the existence of shared dreaming, if not the existence of extraordinary telepathic ability.

On the other hand, your definition for shared dreaming seems a little... odd, to say the least.

You say: "We don't know if the dreamers can communicate, wether they interpret the dream the same, where the shared dream is held etc etc."

Which essentially means: Shared dreaming can exist with the two dreamers recalling different dream settings, recalling different activities, and not being able to communicate.

What you are describing my friend, is a regular, completely normal dream! There is absolutely nothing that's "shared" in the scenario that you describe, aside from the fact that Subject A "sees" Subject B, and vice versa. They are simply dreaming of one another, not "sharing" anything.

That's hilarious.

Jakob

Let me ask you this, why are you here?. What difference does it make discussing if it is real or not. You came here to justify your own idea and not to discuss at all. Currently we are on an internet forum discussing a phenonemon that is hardly going to be proved due to our opinions. With that in mind, knowing that you have made no contribution to the topic surely you can see that these threads are never about discussing if its true or not ( because we just don't know) but about discussing the how. Indeed these threads are essentially useless, what is more useless is your posts trying to convince people it should be easy to prove while you or I know nothing about it.

^^ Before the pissing contest and resume flinging begins:

Jakob, I think what Duthraptor might have been saying was that two people could be in the same dream, but their individual sets of perception may not be able to sync.

For instance, Subject A sees herself on a vast green pasture, peppered with orange cows and giant turtles. She sees one of the turtles approach a cow and shout, over and over, "Nafterschlipot." It makes no sense, and she puzzles about the turtle for a moment, perhaps even wondering if it's the subject B she's supposed to meet. Then she moves on, waiting for someone who looks like subject B to appear.

Subject B, meanwhile, is in a crowded 19th century ballroom, wading through unoccupied but dancing dresses and suits trying to find subject A. He begins to think the experiment has failed, but won't give up, choosing to shout "Buckchaser" at all the suits and dresses in the hopes that Subject A is one of them.

Absurd, maybe, but here is a case where a shared dream physically did happen, but the dreamers never knew it because their perception and individual dreaming minds do not speak the same language.

I think that actually being able to incorporate a recognizable avatar of your dreaming partner into your dream, and vise-versa, is the greatest hurdle of shared-dreaming. Communication cannot happen if we are incapable by nature to understand each other.

Also, none of this has to do with dream recall, and shouldn't -- which is why Dutchraptor's (and LaBerge's) suggestion of making similar movements is important.

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ Before the pissing contest and resume flinging begins:

Jakob, I think what Duthraptor might have been saying was that two people could be in the same dream, but their individual sets of perception may not be able to sync.

For instance, Subject A sees herself on a vast green pasture, peppered with orange cows and giant turtles. She sees one of the turtles approach a cow and shout, over and over, "Nafterschlipot." It makes no sense, and she puzzles about the turtle for a moment, perhaps even wondering if it's the subject B she's supposed to meet. Then she moves on, waiting for someone who looks like subject B to appear.

Subject B, meanwhile, is in a crowded 19th century ballroom, wading through unoccupied but dancing dresses and suits trying to find subject A. He begins to think the experiment has failed, but won't give up, choosing to shout "Buckchaser" at all the suits and dresses in the hopes that Subject A is one of them.

Absurd, maybe, but here is a case where a shared dream physically did happen, but the dreamers never knew it because their perception and individual dreaming minds do not speak the same language.

Very well, but this type of scenario is something entirely different from the descriptions of shared dreams that DreamViews members are putting out. When I am reading about shared dreaming adventures on this forum, they are supposedly "shared" in the true sense of the word.

I think that actually being able to incorporate a recognizable avatar of your dreaming partner into your dream, and vise-versa, is the greatest hurdle of shared-dreaming. Communication cannot happen if we are incapable by nature to understand each other.

Also, none of this has to do with dream recall, and shouldn't -- which is why Dutchraptor's (and LaBerge's) suggestion of making similar movements is important.

How about eye-movements AND a password? Subject A says the password to Subject B. Subject B repeats it, and then they both proceed to do the eye-movement thing. If the dream is really being shared, there would be no problems showing it in a study, using these two methods.

Jakob

BTW, "Nafterschlipot" is an awesome word, I swear.

How'd you come up with it?

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Let me ask you this, why are you here?. What difference does it make discussing if it is real or not. You came here to justify your own idea and not to discuss at all. Currently we are on an internet forum discussing a phenonemon that is hardly going to be proved due to our opinions. With that in mind, knowing that you have made no contribution to the topic surely you can see that these threads are never about discussing if its true or not ( because we just don't know) but about discussing the how. Indeed these threads are essentially useless, what is more useless is your posts trying to convince people it should be easy to prove while you or I know nothing about it.

I apologize. Please, go ahead and discuss "how" shared dreaming exists, without having any evidence for it's existence in the first place.

Originally Posted by Jakob

BTW, "Nafterschlipot" is an awesome word, I swear.

How'd you come up with it?

Stream of consciousness, no more ... maybe I remember it from a dream, when a mailbox was frantically shouting it to get my attention?

Originally Posted by Jakob

Very well, but this type of scenario is something entirely different from the descriptions of shared dreams that DreamViews members are putting out. When I am reading about shared dreaming adventures on this forum, they are supposedly "shared" in the true sense of the word.

Yes, the actual condition of the shared dream, including perception, is often left out of the DV formula. Also getting little play are ideas like the possibility that we could all be sharing dreams all the time, but simply cannot recognize each other (and by extension shared dreaming becomes a much simpler act of paying attention, rather than a special mystical power), I've grown used to it, though I (and a few others, like Shadowofwind) will insert this stuff when I get a chance. I'm not sure if anyone notices, but what the hell, I tried!

How about eye-movements AND a password? Subject A says the password to Subject B. Subject B repeats it, and then they both proceed to do the eye-movement thing. If the dream is really being shared, there would be no problems showing it in a study, using these two methods.

That's not a terrible idea. The test would still be simple, and the problem of recall and reporting would be diminished.

Originally Posted by Sageous

That's not a terrible idea. The test would still be simple, and the problem of recall and reporting would be diminished.

I agree.

I have been sharing dreams with family members since I was a little girl! It usually involved my dad, but my mom and brother were sometimes there, too. As I grew older these shared dreams diminished, although I do have some precognitive dreams every now and then.