Thread: Shared Dreaming Debate

No you won't see me here debating with jakob and fennecgirl tomorrow or after that, i rather lurk and laugh at those 2. Calling us desperate about this shared dreaming stuff doesn't help too.
Do not reply or quote me, you twos, it will look even worse for you.

Jacob,

I didn't respond to your earlier reply because everything you said ignored what I actually said. It seemed pointless. I've got a couple of hours to waste now though.

Originally Posted by Jakob

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.

I never said that any of the claims made here amounted to a controlled study.

Originally Posted by Jakob

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.

If you were a psychic, you would understand your own abilities well enough to see that the Randi challenge is set up in a way that precludes a demonstration of those abilities. But OK, I'm reaching out to dream researchers again through e-mail to see if I can get any interest in collaboration on a study. No luck in the past.

Originally Posted by Jakob

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.

No. I'm not even remotely that well controlled. Here's an idea I have for a study. The dream researcher at the respected institution finds some other people who are emotionally intelligent or developed and have an interest in personal growth. He gets one of them to give him a question about something they're trying to understand that they care about. They can't just make up any test question, it has to be something they actually care about at a fairly deep level. The next day I write down what I dreamed and send it to the researcher. Then he tries the next person, and I dream the next night. If he does more than one subject at a time I'll get confused, and I'll get confused anyway because all of the subjects already have those questions before they share them with him. But I might have images in the dreams that connect to the other individuals in convincingly specific ways. Or I might not. This works with only about half the people I try it with, and I haven't tried it in the context of a third party study that is trying to prove the phenomena. That's a different situation, because then the thoughts of the researcher and all the people who will read and be impacted by the study results are involved also. I'm willing to try it though.

Originally Posted by Jakob

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.

I can't induce it at will. Every 3rd or 4th means half of posters, who are you referring to? Even someone who can induce it at will with a friend or lover won't necessarily be able to do much in a controlled study.

Originally Posted by Jakob

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.

OK. I've only had one experience with moving an object, but it was partially involuntary, and I interpreted it as changing the history of where the object had been, in a manner inconsistent with the history of other objects, rather than applying a force that moves it. I don't have an opinion on what other people may have done with that in the past. I think they might have had trouble with the Randi challenge though, because of the modern thought climate, the need to be endorsed by a university expert before being accepted for the challenge, etc. Plus a lot of those guys were charlatans, and I don't know about any of them specifically.

Originally Posted by Jakob

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."

OK, we agree at least that the 'how it works' explanations are all pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and not worth paying attention to. I understand physics theory well enough though to know that it doesn't contradict currently theory, even though it doesn't fall inside the current theory either. That explanation can remove a mental barrier for some people that then makes these other demonstrations easier.

Originally Posted by Jakob

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.

OK. Not good enough for you. I can produce some evidence. For example I have an e-mail that I sent a few hours before the Hudson river water landing a couple of years ago that mirrors that event. Its in close metaphor, not like a literal film of it. For instance in the dream the 'engine' is a building about that same size with an opening and a metal contraption inside that vibrates and self destructs after a bird-sized blob is thrown into it. And the fuselage is a long, adjacent building with water on the floor. But of course that's subject to some interpretation, and I could forge the e-mail. Even a study controlled by respected scientists can be faked also, and sadly often are (clinical studies in particular). The fact that you didn't even ask about this sort of thing, but just responded with a bunch of assertions about things neither of us believe is why I didn't bother saying more.

Originally Posted by Jakob

Are you saying these patterns are evidence of psychic abilities?

Not the patterns I mentioned. Similar patterns can accompany psychic development though. As you being being more aware of the weak influence you have on your environment, you try to organize that influence into some kind of coherent scheme. Anything scheme that you cook up or try to work with such as numerology then starts working a lot better than it had previously.

Originally Posted by Jakob

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.

Not so meaningless as to prevent you from replying at length though. I blew you off as incorrigible after you ignored the main points in my first response to you. Then I got back into it since you were so enthusiastically fighting with Hathnor and suggesting her arguments are illogical and unscientific. If you want scientific, engage with the scientist here. Otherwise you're just posturing. Maybe your responses to my posts have just been a matter of unfortunate assumptions and poor communication on my part. If so, I'm willing to try some more.

Originally Posted by Jakob

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.

OK already, I understood that from the start. Nobody is asking you to believe, or certainly I'm not. Personally I think its better for you not to believe in things you have no evidence of, and I agree that the word of other people very often can't be trusted. But when you attack other people's personal beliefs as being irrational, when they have evidence which you personally lack, you're not being rational. Two hundred years ago almost nothing had been proved by scientific study. Had I lived then, I nevertheless would have believed many things, at least as working hypotheses. Now more things are known, and you're deciding to draw the line and say OK, only what has been rigorously established is what you believe. That may be fine for you, but for me it leaves out too much of my experience, things I have to deal with and make choices about almost every day. You came here not just to share what you think makes sense, but angry about the perspectives of other people who you don't know and obviously do not understand at all well. I've tried to explain something of where these other people are coming from. But so far it seems you don't want to understand. If you are interested, then its a misunderstanding, and let's continue. If you're not interested, then what are you doing here?

Originally Posted by Jakob

We'll continue this tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure I'll be faced with the same material: Shadowofwind and hathor28 will go around in circles, demanding scientific proof of the non-existence of shared dreaming.

Nowhere did I ever say anything even similar to asking for proof of the non-existence of shared dreaming. You've demonstrated fairly conclusively right here that you're just a troll, or at the very least have very poor reading comprehension.

i've been doing a bit of research on my university database thingy (because, as i expected, a simple google search only brings up fantastical and obviously biased "studies" on this.) I will admit that there's not as much published as i expected there to be, but there's some good stuff. There's a pretty even split of studies that showed no evidence for dream sharing/dream telepathy, and the ones that say there is some evidence but further study is required. And of those, they unfailingly have slightly higher success rates that are barely statistically significant. I wish i could link to them, but they're on the U of Maine intranet. I was able to find one on the regular internet:

http://www.keithhearne.com/wp-conten...-TELEPATHY.pdf

I realize it's not specifically about shared dreams, but it does deal with the dreaming mind supposedly having some sort of "link" to information being sent.

OK OK. Haven't been to this site (or at least haven't posted) in awhile. But I just discovered this "debate" thread and it looked like a fun time to start posting again.
I voted for "Maybe, but it has to be scientifically proven.".
Just like everything else that should be accepted as reality, there needs to be evidence, and I haven't seen any up to this point. Feel free to present me with some. (I've seen this posted in this thread like 1000 times already but I just thought I'd make my stance clear.)

Hi, just popping in to make sure no one is being called a dick and that people are disagreeing without resorting to name calling. I'm sure everyone here can behave themselves, right?

Good.

Originally Posted by zombiesarebad

i've been doing a bit of research on my university database thingy (because, as i expected, a simple google search only brings up fantastical and obviously biased "studies" on this.) I will admit that there's not as much published as i expected there to be, but there's some good stuff. There's a pretty even split of studies that showed no evidence for dream sharing/dream telepathy, and the ones that say there is some evidence but further study is required. And of those, they unfailingly have slightly higher success rates that are barely statistically significant. I wish i could link to them, but they're on the U of Maine intranet. I was able to find one on the regular internet:

http://www.keithhearne.com/wp-conten...-TELEPATHY.pdf

I realize it's not specifically about shared dreams, but it does deal with the dreaming mind supposedly having some sort of "link" to information being sent.

If you run across any that look like they're still interested in studying it, I'd appreciate it if you send me the author's names or contact info.

That 1987 one is way too old to be useful probably.

Here are a couple references on precognition. I haven't looked at them to see if they're any good. All of my precognitive experiences are at least partially shared, and most of my shared experiences are at least partially precognitive.

Bem, D. L. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407-425.
Ullman, M., Krippner, S., & Vaughan, A. (1989). Dream telepathy: Experiments in nocturnal ESP (2nd ed.). Jefferson, NC US: McFarland & Co.

Oh hey, an actual link to the paper:

http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

Here's one against precognitive dreaming. Skimming it quickly, I think their methodology unsound though, that the conclusions they draw from their results only follow if several unexamined assumptions are true.

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2000/Precog%20Dreams.htm

On the Randi challenge:

The Relentless Hypocrisy Of James Randi

Seriously. This guy is a stage magician, not a scientist. Besides, isn't science supposed to be objective? With something as fickle as and misunderstood as psychic phenomenon, don't you think going in with the stance of attempting to disprove it could affect the results? Plus, he demands 100% success rate in the preliminary testing. This far exceeds what any reasonable scientist would demand. Most would consider merely 3 or 4% over chance significant. Imagine if you had a very skilled archer shooting a bulls eye at a distance of a hundred meters. No laws of physics preclude this from happening, but it takes someone of great skill and training to accomplish it. You ask the archer to demonstrate his ability, but with the stipulation that if he does not have an 100% success in hitting the bulls eye, you will denounce his ability to shoot at a great distance a fraud. In fact a success rate of only 50% would be sufficient to demonstrate his ability.

I think a good dose of skepticism is healthy. I think we absolutely should question experiences and seek objective proof. I am also all for debunking fraudulent psychics, mediums, and anything else of that nature, since they obscure the real truth about these phenomenon. But, completely closing your mind to the possibility of something is as foolish as blindly believing in something. I think most people here aren't trying to have everyone blindly accept their claims of shared dreaming, they merely wish to convey their experiences and have others keep an open mind. The world quantum physics postulates is much stranger than we could have imagined; why not at least be open to the idea that there are things we don't yet understand that could be possible?

I often wonder how people so close minded as I see in these threads even ventured into lucid dreaming in the first place.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

If you run across any that look like they're still interested in studying it, I'd appreciate it if you send me the author's names or contact info.

That 1987 one is way too old to be useful probably.

Here are a couple references on precognition. I haven't looked at them to see if they're any good. All of my precognitive experiences are at least partially shared, and most of my shared experiences are at least partially precognitive.

Bem, D. L. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407-425.
Ullman, M., Krippner, S., & Vaughan, A. (1989). Dream telepathy: Experiments in nocturnal ESP (2nd ed.). Jefferson, NC US: McFarland & Co.

Oh hey, an actual link to the paper:

http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

Here's one against precognitive dreaming. Skimming it quickly, I think their methodology unsound though, that the conclusions they draw from their results only follow if several unexamined assumptions are true.

Precognitive Dreams: Bifurcations Due to Tolerance of Ambiguity and Dream Frequency

The first paper is about ESP and isn't even about dreaming at all.

The second paper is about precognitive dreaming, and not about telepathic dreaming.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

Shared dreaming, if real, can not be easily demonstrated through a scientific study.

I think I'll make this my sig.

Originally Posted by Rybread34

OK OK. Haven't been to this site (or at least haven't posted) in awhile. But I just discovered this "debate" thread and it looked like a fun time to start posting again.
I voted for "Maybe, but it has to be scientifically proven.".
Just like everything else that should be accepted as reality, there needs to be evidence, and I haven't seen any up to this point. Feel free to present me with some. (I've seen this posted in this thread like 1000 times already but I just thought I'd make my stance clear.)

This isn't a debate thread. This is a "prove to us that shared dreaming doesn't exist" thread.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

Nowhere did I ever say anything even similar to asking for proof of the non-existence of shared dreaming. You've demonstrated fairly conclusively right here that you're just a troll, or at the very least have very poor reading comprehension.

Fair enough, but you seemed to lean toward his points of view in regards to shared dreaming, so I assumed you were his sidekick.

Now if there is anyone with poor reading comprehension in this thread, then that is hathor28. No doubt about it.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

I didn't respond to your earlier reply because everything you said ignored what I actually said. It seemed pointless. I've got a couple of hours to waste now though.

It didn't ignore what you said. It only ignored the same things I have to reply to over and over and over again, and I'm sick of writing the same thing 20 times.

I never said that any of the claims made here amounted to a controlled study.

You didn't say it directly, but I got the impression that you wanted to equate them as having the same worth.

If you were a psychic, you would understand your own abilities well enough to see that the Randi challenge is set up in a way that precludes a demonstration of those abilities.

No, that's just a cop out. If I could move a psi-wheel in my living room, or bedroom, or basement, I could also do it in a controlled setting with James Randi watching me. That is, if I wasn't a charlatain of course.

But OK, I'm reaching out to dream researchers again through e-mail to see if I can get any interest in collaboration on a study. No luck in the past.

I sincerely hope you're able to reach them and get something started.

No. I'm not even remotely that well controlled. Here's an idea I have for a study. The dream researcher at the respected institution finds some other people who are emotionally intelligent or developed and have an interest in personal growth. He gets one of them to give him a question about something they're trying to understand that they care about. They can't just make up any test question, it has to be something they actually care about at a fairly deep level. The next day I write down what I dreamed and send it to the researcher. Then he tries the next person, and I dream the next night. If he does more than one subject at a time I'll get confused, and I'll get confused anyway because all of the subjects already have those questions before they share them with him. But I might have images in the dreams that connect to the other individuals in convincingly specific ways. Or I might not. This works with only about half the people I try it with, and I haven't tried it in the context of a third party study that is trying to prove the phenomena. That's a different situation, because then the thoughts of the researcher and all the people who will read and be impacted by the study results are involved also. I'm willing to try it though.

It's "alright", but..... really... why is almost every believer in shared dreaming avoiding a much simpler study using just one freaking password in combination with coordinated eye movements!?

I can't induce it at will. Every 3rd or 4th means half of posters, who are you referring to? Even someone who can induce it at will with a friend or lover won't necessarily be able to do much in a controlled study.

Let's just say there are too many posts, with people claiming they can shared dream. I don't see why someone who is very experienced with it wouldn't able to do it in a controlled study. Maybe not the first time, but after several attempts it absolutely has to work. Again, "it works in private but not in a study" seems to be just another copout.

OK. I've only had one experience with moving an object, but it was partially involuntary, and I interpreted it as changing the history of where the object had been, in a manner inconsistent with the history of other objects, rather than applying a force that moves it. I don't have an opinion on what other people may have done with that in the past. I think they might have had trouble with the Randi challenge though, because of the modern thought climate, the need to be endorsed by a university expert before being accepted for the challenge, etc. Plus a lot of those guys were charlatans, and I don't know about any of them specifically.

Nina Kulagina was controlled in several studies and they found nothing on her. Too bad, because back then there was no James Randi challenge, or anything similar. FYI, I believe in telekinesis, just so you know you're not talking to a hardcore skeptic here. I'm just sick of "everyone" doing TK, "everyone" doing astral projection, "everyone" shared dreaming, blah blah blah. By everyone I don't mean literally everyone, but tons of people on various internet forums (not only this one, but many others).

OK, we agree at least that the 'how it works' explanations are all pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and not worth paying attention to. I understand physics theory well enough though to know that it doesn't contradict currently theory, even though it doesn't fall inside the current theory either. That explanation can remove a mental barrier for some people that then makes these other demonstrations easier.

And that's why I've been saying the entire time (and once again I have to repeat it, unfortunately), that I am not ruling out the possibility/existence of shared dreaming. If it works, there are several ways it could work, perhaps if there is an astral plane those two people are meeting there, or if there is a strong telepathic connection between the two, the shared dreaming could simply be this connection manifasted through a dream, etc.

But until I'm certain it does work, meaning until I experience it for myself, or see a good study on it, I do not want to work about how it works.

OK. Not good enough for you. I can produce some evidence. For example I have an e-mail that I sent a few hours before the Hudson river water landing a couple of years ago that mirrors that event. Its in close metaphor, not like a literal film of it. For instance in the dream the 'engine' is a building about that same size with an opening and a metal contraption inside that vibrates and self destructs after a bird-sized blob is thrown into it. And the fuselage is a long, adjacent building with water on the floor. But of course that's subject to some interpretation, and I could forge the e-mail. Even a study controlled by respected scientists can be faked also, and sadly often are (clinical studies in particular). The fact that you didn't even ask about this sort of thing, but just responded with a bunch of assertions about things neither of us believe is why I didn't bother saying more.

I have no problems believing you with this dream, but isn't this a precognitive dream of sorts? I thought we're discussing shared dreaming. I see a difference there.

Not the patterns I mentioned. Similar patterns can accompany psychic development though. As you being being more aware of the weak influence you have on your environment, you try to organize that influence into some kind of coherent scheme. Anything scheme that you cook up or try to work with such as numerology then starts working a lot better than it had previously.

But some people are paying way too much attention to numbers, wouldn't you agree?

Not so meaningless as to prevent you from replying at length though. I blew you off as incorrigible after you ignored the main points in my first response to you.

I didn't ignore anything I didn't talk about before. As I said, I was just tired of repeating the same things many times.

Then I got back into it since you were so enthusiastically fighting with Hathnor and suggesting her arguments are illogical and unscientific.

Of course her arguments are illogical. They are not only illogical, but absolutely ridiculous. She is basically stating, that because there is no study which fails to demonstrat shared dreaming, there is a high likelihood for it's existence.

If you want scientific, engage with the scientist here. Otherwise you're just posturing. Maybe your responses to my posts have just been a matter of unfortunate assumptions and poor communication on my part. If so, I'm willing to try some more.

Hmm, ok?

OK already, I understood that from the start. Nobody is asking you to believe, or certainly I'm not. Personally I think its better for you not to believe in things you have no evidence of, and I agree that the word of other people very often can't be trusted.

I said this once before in this thread: if I experienced shared dreaming personally, I wouldn't give a rat's a$$ about scientific evidence.

FYI, I voted "Maybe, but I have to experience it for myself."

But when you attack other people's personal beliefs as being irrational, when they have evidence which you personally lack, you're not being rational.

I am being very rational, as believing someone's claims without evidence would actually be irrational. Someone saying he has an ability isn't evidence for me. With all due respect, someone claiming he/she can communicate telepathically with someone, isn't evidence for me, it's just a claim.

Two hundred years ago almost nothing had been proved by scientific study. Had I lived then, I nevertheless would have believed many things, at least as working hypotheses. Now more things are known, and you're deciding to draw the line and say OK, only what has been rigorously established is what you believe. That may be fine for you, but for me it leaves out too much of my experience, things I have to deal with and make choices about almost every day.

But have all the scientific tools today which are necessary to prove a concept like shared dreaming, if it really exists. All we need is two people who transfer information from one another in a dream, and are able to recall it after waking up. A setting in which these people are separated from one another, REM-monitoring equipment, and people overlooking the experiment. That's all we need.

If LaBerge "proved" Lucid Dreaming through REM-monitoring and coordinated eye-movements, why run away from a similar study in which two experienced shared dreamers engage with one another in a dream world?

You came here not just to share what you think makes sense, but angry about the perspectives of other people who you don't know and obviously do not understand at all well. I've tried to explain something of where these other people are coming from.

I don't blindly believe everything I read. That's the only issue.

But so far it seems you don't want to understand. If you are interested, then its a misunderstanding, and let's continue. If you're not interested, then what are you doing here?

I have written in detail about what I "understand" and what I "don't understand", so I'm tired of typing everything again and again. I am a believer in the paranormal, but I don't accept simple claims that easily. To me, someone on an internet forum writing about his experiences of shared dreaming isn't enough to make me believe. Sorry, that's just the way it is, and I believe I am being completely rational when I say this.

Jakob

Originally Posted by Mindraker

The first paper is about ESP and isn't even about dreaming at all.

The second paper is about precognitive dreaming, and not about telepathic dreaming.

As I've described elsewhere, for me precognitive dreams all have a shared element, and most dreams with shared thought are partially precognitive, and it's the same process as waking ESP. Yes the papers aren't perfectly relevant, and I don't claim they're any good, I just posted them because they're the closest things I found in a quick search.

Jakob, You keep repeating the same point over and over again, as if people somehow aren't understanding that point. You interpreted nearly everything I said as if it were an attempted rebuttal of that point, rather than reading what I actually said. Nobody is expecting you to believe in shared dreaming. That's not what anyone is trying to say here.

shadowofwind,
This Jakob guy is not worth your time or energy debating - he is just trolling you. Notice he didn't even respond to my post. If he was truly interested in science or at least a consensus of understanding (which in my opinion is what debate should be about, not hammering someone with your ideas) he wouldn't have quietly ignored my criticisms of the Randi challenge.

I normally don't even get sucked into such vitriolic threads, but using the Randi challenge as an argument just really irks me.

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

I often wonder how people so close minded as I see in these threads even ventured into lucid dreaming in the first place.

Bravo!

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

shadowofwind,
This Jakob guy is not worth your time or energy debating - he is just trolling you. Notice he didn't even respond to my post. If he was truly interested in science or at least a consensus of understanding (which in my opinion is what debate should be about, not hammering someone with your ideas) he wouldn't have quietly ignored my criticisms of the Randi challenge.

I normally don't even get sucked into such vitriolic threads, but using the Randi challenge as an argument just really irks me.

I am not an associate of James Randi and therefore I felt no need to reply to your post. You didn't even direct the post toward me, or did you? I don't see my name anywhere in your post.

And I generally hate forum discussions where people start to post links to articles on the internet to prove their point. The article you posted points out only one single person who James Randi didn't want to deal with, and for obvious reasons. Claiming to be able to live only on water and air is... well, make up your own mind about it.

But since you posted a link, let me post one too:

"Psychic" James Van Praagh Demurs James Randi's $1,000,000 Offer | Suite101.com

If you take a look at "The people who James Randi declined" vs. "The people who declined James Randi's challenge", the picture becomes very clear.

Originally Posted by Jakob

Let's just say there are too many posts, with people claiming they can shared dream. I don't see why someone who is very experienced with it wouldn't able to do it in a controlled study. Maybe not the first time, but after several attempts it absolutely has to work. Again, "it works in private but not in a study" seems to be just another copout.

Here's a thought, and maybe an attempt to go back to a debate:

What if nobody can shared-dream on purpose, but we can all shared dream by accident?

In other words, what if, as I mentioned earlier, shared-dreaming were a normal part of everyone's dreamlife, but we are simply not programmed to notice we're doing it, or remember that we did it? What if, also, the "unnatural" action of lucid dreaming has allowed a lucky few of us to notice (in addition to folks like Shadowofwind, who already did) that this phenomenon is happening?

That would make it very hard to prove scientifically.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Here's a thought, and maybe an attempt to go back to a debate:

What if nobody can shared-dream on purpose, but we can all shared dream by accident?

In other words, what if, as I mentioned earlier, shared-dreaming were a normal part of everyone's dreamlife, but we are simply not programmed to notice we're doing it, or remember that we did it? What if, also, the "unnatural" action of lucid dreaming has allowed a lucky few of us to notice (in addition to folks like Shadowofwind, who already did) that this phenomenon is happening?

That would make it very hard to prove scientifically.

Sure, I accept the fact that there could be shared dreaming which go by unnoticed, but those are not the type of shared dreams that are being discussed on DV. Here is an example of the "Dreamviews" type of shared dreams:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f32/i-shar...sister-133599/

In that thread above, we have three shared dreamers. The OP and her twin sister, and the person who replied.

Originally Posted by Jakob

You didn't say it directly, but I got the impression that you wanted to equate them as having the same worth.

In my reading, your impressions haven't been a very reliable reflection of what people have been trying to say.

Originally Posted by Jakob

No, that's just a cop out. If I could move a psi-wheel in my living room, or bedroom, or basement, I could also do it in a controlled setting with James Randi watching me.

I didn't say anything about hypothetical people who can move psi-wheels every time they try. I was talking about the abilities that people actually have.

Originally Posted by Jakob

I sincerely hope you're able to reach them and get something started.

Thanks. Two no's back so far.

Originally Posted by Jakob

It's "alright", but..... really... why is almost every believer in shared dreaming avoiding a much simpler study using just one freaking password in combination with coordinated eye movements!?

Because this experiment is trying to test a type of shared dreaming that isn't what anyone I'm aware of is actually doing. My shared dreams, such as they are, aren't even synchronous.

Originally Posted by Jakob

Let's just say there are too many posts, with people claiming they can shared dream. I don't see why someone who is very experienced with it wouldn't able to do it in a controlled study. Maybe not the first time, but after several attempts it absolutely has to work. Again, "it works in private but not in a study" seems to be just another copout.

If you become interested in what people are actually claiming to do, then you'll understand why its hard to do in a controlled study. Also, to get published, the controlled study needs an 'expert' who does dream research at a university or hospital to referee, and nobody has been able to find one who is interested. And not for lack of trying.

Originally Posted by Jakob

Nina Kulagina was controlled in several studies and they found nothing on her. Too bad, because back then there was no James Randi challenge, or anything similar. FYI, I believe in telekinesis, just so you know you're not talking to a hardcore skeptic here. I'm just sick of "everyone" doing TK, "everyone" doing astral projection, "everyone" shared dreaming, blah blah blah. By everyone I don't mean literally everyone, but tons of people on various internet forums (not only this one, but many others).

For a great many people astral projection is not that hard. I think its way easier than a fully lucid shared dream would be. If it bothers you that people post about compelling things that they've experienced, and that there seem to be more of those people than you think there should be, I don't really get that. It almost seems motivated by jealously. Some people are showing off and not entirely honest, and nobody's motives are utterly pure. But you seem to be painting with a very broad brush.

Originally Posted by Jakob

And that's why I've been saying the entire time (and once again I have to repeat it, unfortunately), that I am not ruling out the possibility/existence of shared dreaming.

Yes we all understand that, you don't have to keep repeating it, you're only imagining that we don't understand that.

Originally Posted by Jakob

But until I'm certain it does work, meaning until I experience it for myself, or see a good study on it, I do not want to work about how it works.

Yes we understand that too.

Originally Posted by Jakob

I have no problems believing you with this dream, but isn't this a precognitive dream of sorts? I thought we're discussing shared dreaming. I see a difference there.

Its not a precognition of something in my own future experience, there's a shared element for me to be in that place and have that experience. That dream was several years ago obviously; more recently the shared element has been more pronounced and the precognitive element less so. As I have said previously, all of my 'shared' dreams are partially precognitive. When I experience the other person's mind, it sort of stands outside of the present moment, and the metaphorical images that get pulled in to support the experience come from future as well as past experience.

Originally Posted by Jakob

But some people are paying way too much attention to numbers, wouldn't you agree?

Sure. People make themselves nuts with it.

Originally Posted by Jakob

I didn't ignore anything I didn't talk about before. As I said, I was just tired of repeating the same things many times.

You've ignored things you haven't spoken to squarely even once, and instead repeated the same things many times.

Originally Posted by Jakob

Of course her arguments are illogical. They are not only illogical, but absolutely ridiculous. She is basically stating, that because there is no study which fails to demonstrat shared dreaming, there is a high likelihood for it's existence.

No she didn't say that at all. She doesn't believe that, and it wasn't her point. You just twisted what she said into that, instead of trying to understand what she was trying to say. Her point was not that anyone should believe in shared dreaming on account of the lack of a study disproving it. Her point was that if someone believes in shared dreaming based on their own personal experimentation, then the absence of scientific studies proving shared dreaming does not affirm or discredit that experience any more than the absence of scientific studies disproving shared dreaming would.

Originally Posted by Jakob

I said this once before in this thread: if I experienced shared dreaming personally, I wouldn't give a rat's a$$ about scientific evidence.

And yet somehow you fault everyone else for making the same choice, to the point where their talking about their personal experiences makes you 'angry'.

Originally Posted by Jakob

I am being very rational, as believing someone's claims without evidence would actually be irrational. Someone saying he has an ability isn't evidence for me. With all due respect, someone claiming he/she can communicate telepathically with someone, isn't evidence for me, it's just a claim.

Yes, once again, we all understand that. We have understood that from the very beginning.

Originally Posted by Jakob

But have all the scientific tools today which are necessary to prove a concept like shared dreaming, if it really exists. All we need is two people who transfer information from one another in a dream, and are able to recall it after waking up. A setting in which these people are separated from one another, REM-monitoring equipment, and people overlooking the experiment. That's all we need.

You are still not paying attention to what people are saying they are doing when they shared dream. No that experiment will fail utterly.

Originally Posted by Jakob

If LaBerge "proved" Lucid Dreaming through REM-monitoring and coordinated eye-movements, why run away from a similar study in which two experienced shared dreamers engage with one another in a dream world?

Nobody that I'm aware of is running away from an opportunity to demonstrate what they actually do, which is not quite the same as what you keep insisting they're claiming to do.

If I could directly move objects around with my mind once a week or so when conditions were ripe, that would be a real ability. Still it wouldn't be demonstrable by the type of test you propose. Nobody that I'm aware of is that well controlled. Yet you keep proposing the same kinds of tests anyway, apparently without any interest in understanding what the necessary conditions are.

Originally Posted by Jakob

I don't blindly believe everything I read. That's the only issue.

The only issue to anyone else is that you don't try to understand what you read, you project other things into it, then keep saying the same things over and over as if nobody understood you the first time.

Originally Posted by Jakob

I have written in detail about what I "understand" and what I "don't understand", so I'm tired of typing everything again and again. I am a believer in the paranormal, but I don't accept simple claims that easily. To me, someone on an internet forum writing about his experiences of shared dreaming isn't enough to make me believe.

Yes we are tired of it too.

Originally Posted by Jakob

Sorry, that's just the way it is, and I believe I am being completely rational when I say this.

What makes you irrational isn't your disbelief in shared dreaming. Its the way you attribute thoughts to other people which they neither have nor expressed, and don't listen to them when they try to clarify what they meant. Your earlier statement about me demanding proof of the non-existence of shared dreaming was a good example of this, though far, far from the only one.

I will work now.

Jakob,
No, I didn't address you directly in the post, I suppose I should have.

Did you read the rest of the post at all? Again, Randi is not a scientist and demands 100% success rate, which is ludicrous. Also, requiring someone to front all of the cost of the preliminary round seems a barrier as well to less famous and fortunate people of paranormal ability. Of course it is very likely that many (if not most) celebrity psychics are frauds, and like a said I'm all for debunking them. I am also quite suspicious of anyone who does this sort of thing for money and fame.

But, using the Randi challenge as an argument that no psychic phenomenon exists is beyond the bounds of reason.

Anyway, I don't enjoy debates that are pissing contest. I enjoy debates that result in an increased understanding for both parties. I completely realize some of my beliefs and ideas are radical, and am more than open to rational skepticism and criticism. In the same way, I expect to the skeptic to at least be open to radical ideas. I don't expect you to have an open, honest exchange in regards to what I am posting. The reasons I jumped in on this thread is so that others reading don't buy into the Randi challenge without having a critical look at the other side of the coin. Also, I guess don't like seeing shadowofwind drawn needlessly into close minded negativity, but that is his decision anyway.

I'm going to quote Wolfwood, as his stance is what I'm trying to convey as wish more people of a skeptical nature would understand:

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

As you can see, I am skeptical; however, open to it being a slim possibility. I won't outright refuse its possibility -- that is seemingly ridiculous. There are those who follow (those who wait until there are published studies of, say, lucid dreaming, before believing and attempting it), and those who lead/experiment (those who design, implement experiments, and try it; they publish the studies demonstrating its possibility). If everyone was the latter, we'd get much more done.

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

Did you read the rest of the post at all? Again, Randi is not a scientist and demands 100% success rate, which is ludicrous. Also, requiring someone to front all of the cost of the preliminary round seems a barrier as well to less famous and fortunate people of paranormal ability. Of course it is very likely that many (if not most) celebrity psychics are frauds, and like a said I'm all for debunking them. I am also quite suspicious of anyone who does this sort of thing for money and fame.

But, using the Randi challenge as an argument that no psychic phenomenon exists is beyond the bounds of reason.

When you start off wrong, nothing right will follow.

Where have I ever said that I believe psychic phenomena don't exist? I clearly stated several times that I believe in psychic phenomena. I only said that I believe them to exist in a much much smaller number than people presume.

Anyway, I don't enjoy debates that are pissing contest. I enjoy debates that result in an increased understanding for both parties. I completely realize some of my beliefs and ideas are radical, and am more than open to rational skepticism and criticism. In the same way, I expect to the skeptic to at least be open to radical ideas. I don't expect you to have an open, honest exchange in regards to what I am posting. The reasons I jumped in on this thread is so that others reading don't buy into the Randi challenge without having a critical look at the other side of the coin. Also, I guess don't like seeing shadowofwind drawn needlessly into close minded negativity, but that is his decision anyway.

I am looking at both sides of the coin. Right now as far as shared dreaming is concerned (the type of shared dreaming proposed on DV), I see extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Actually, without any evidence.

I'm going to quote Wolfwood, as his stance is what I'm trying to convey as wish more people of a skeptical nature would understand:

Find me a skeptic who believes in God, Extraterrestrials, and Psychic Phenomena.

Because that's me.

And it's a good thing that you edited out the last sentence of your post about walking away from this thread. It would have been pretty rude.

This was his first post i read, and already when i read it, i knew i wasn't going to like you, and i don't know you. All the energy and reading from this made me interact in a way he is to this thread. Also talking about telepathy that he believes in it yet he just said now that he need evidence that i have this ability to read minds and people and energy.
Yet he comes to me and asks about religion and some sort that does not have anything to do with telepathy and esp. I do not like the way he is approaching this and mocking this thread with his anger.
The best bet is to ignore him and once he quotes you and it "feels" like his usual run around then just don't talk back, because all he wants is attention and more havoc once his attention is noticed. And if he does say that we are desperate and have no proof etc then so be it let him down play without attention. Thanks for reading this.

Originally Posted by Jakob

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