Thread: Shared Dreaming Debate

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

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

Or it may be your faulty interpretation/understanding of my posts.

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.

And yet many, many people they can not only move psi-wheels, but bend spoons, and also levitate objects with ease. Ever hear of PsiPog? That was a website with probably the biggest discussion forum about psychic abilities, and it had hundreds of users claiming they can levitate objects, spin pencils, some even claiming to be able to move large objects such as chairs. You can still visit PsiPog, but it is inactive. There are no updates to the website anymore, and the forum is shut down.

My point: these extraordinary claims indeed require extraordinary evidence, because after all, a video clip posted on YouTube means nothing. And with this many "telekinetics", "remote viewers" and "shared dreamers" who claim to do it at such ease, we really have nothing except their claims to hold on to???

Thanks. Two no's back so far.

Keep trying, I hope you succeed.

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.

Maybe not yours, but: http://www.dreamviews.com/f32/i-shar...sister-133599/

And the person who replied to that thread is also one of those.

Not to mention the numerous other threads with people making these claims. To some it happens spontaneously, and to others they can do it at will. I am talking about those who can do it at will. Those can prove shared dreaming via the study I suggested. It couldn't be simpler.

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.

LaBerge could do it. Celia Green could do it. Many others could. But why don't they?

Let's not underestimate LaBerge. He did so many years of studying lucid dreaming, and yet he speaks very little of shared dreaming. Why do you think that is?

For a great many people astral projection is not that hard. I think its way easier than a fully lucid shared dream would be.

Oh please!! Let's not start about astral projection. I believed I was astral projecting, until I did several reality checks, and the time on my digital clock behaved just like in a lucid dream.

In fact... everything behaved like a lucid dream.

I'm not ruling out the existence of true astral projection, but again, the majority of cases are nothing more than lucid dreams.

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.

I experienced compelling things in my life as well. Paranormal things. But I don't ask other people to believe it if I don't have any evidence I could show them. That is the difference between me, and some other people in this thread. The others want me to not to demand evidence, but simply swallow what they say.

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

I'm really not sure that you do.

Yes we understand that too.

I hope so.

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.

Then we should split shared dreaming into several types of shared dreams, and that it's easier for people to know what exactly is being discussed.

When I think about shared dreaming, I think about the scenario most DV users post about. The one similar to the twin sisters thread I posted earlier.

Sure. People make themselves nuts with it.

And sometimes there is no pattern other than the person obsessing with a certain number. Would you agree this happens?

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

LOL, now I really don't understand what you're saying.

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.

No, she clearly demanded that I show her a study which disproves shared dreaming, or a scientist who says that shared dreaming is impossible. Do I really need to go back and quote her?

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'.

It's their attitude that makes me angry, and not their supposed experiences.

"If you don't believe I can shared dream, you're irrational."

That's basically it.

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

Maybe now you do, after me expressing these thoughts a million times. Earlier it didn't seem you understood it exactly.

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

Absolute nonsense, and rubbish. The twin sisters thread is not the only shared dreaming thread with people claiming such abilities.

If someone truly has these abilities, the chances of that experiment failing are next to none.

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.

If you can move a psi-wheel once a week, and you could demonstrate this ability 2 or 3 times (one time each week), why on earth do you think the study would fail?

And about the "well controlled" part, I direct you to PsiPog, where people can levitate pocket knives.

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.

Nope. Try again.

Yes we are tired of it too.

I don't think so. Or else you wouldn't ask the same questions.

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.

I could say the same thing about you, and hathor28.

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.

That is actually the only example, and there is a very simple reason for that one little mistake. You were defending hathor28, so I assumed you were her sidekick. That's why I thought you had the same ridiculous ideas as her.

I will work now.

Best wishes.

Jakob

Originally Posted by hathor28

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.

I am seriously debating with myself right now whether or not to ignore each and every one of your nonsense posts.

Never say that you believe in ESP and yet question shared dreaming, those 2 go together in perfect harmony.
ESP is telepathy they are both one in the same thing they are all under the same category. I will not speak to someone well once they say they believe in esp and not shared dreaming fully, that is just a crock and it is someone that doesn't know anything but yet tells me i don't got understanding on what this debate is.
Btw my posts are not nonsense, who ever states what i just posted now and before is nonsense just wants to be right all the time and don't want to accept the truth about ESP and shared dreaming goes together perfectly.

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.

You said you believe in ESP Extrasensory perception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

Extrasensory perception (ESP) involves reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind. The term was coined by Frederic Myers,[1] and adopted by Duke University psychologist J. B. Rhine to denote psychic abilities such as telepathy, clairaudience, and clairvoyance, and their trans-temporal operation as precognition or retrocognition. ESP is also sometimes casually referred to as a sixth sense, gut instinct or hunch, which are historical English idioms. It is also sometimes referred to as intuition. The term implies acquisition of information by means external to the basic limiting assumptions of science, such as that organisms can only receive information from the past to the present.
-Parapsychologists study a number of ostensible paranormal phenomena, including telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, near-death experiences, reincarnation and apparitional experiences.

~"Which means you also believe in psychic, telepathy, clairaudience,clairvoyance and their trans-temporal operation as precognition or retrocognition. Psychokinesis, near-death experiences, reincarnation and apparitional experiences." Yet you question shared dreaming.

Don't say that you believe in ESP and you don't know the full definition of it. Yet you say you believe psychic phenomena to exist in a much much smaller number than people presume. Which means you don't believe in ESP fully. SO why say you believe in it? It's either you believe it or not.
Which this leads to shared dreaming. You don't believe in it fully. Like i said it's either you believe in it or not, and why debate on something you're quite not sure of? or better yet, understand?

-I liked my own post because this is how true it can ever be, now if he comes and denounces this? then he doesn't know what he is talking about!

Originally Posted by Jakob

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.


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.


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.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, then, because I actually agree that claims of psychic phenomenon are over inflated. Perhaps we are on the same page, at least in this case.

If you agree that psychic phenomenon is possible, then why do you continually bring up the Randi challenge? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your stance is, then. I see now that you wrote that you do believe shared dreaming is possible. It seems its the over-exaggeration of claims that is getting under your skin. (Please correct me if I am wrong here.) If this is true, why does it bother you so much? Why not bring the discussion back to the possibility of shared dreaming and how that might work rather than focusing on specific claims? I think that would be much more interesting in any case.

Maybe some people are over estimating their experience with shared dreaming. But, who knows, maybe we are all under estimating it as well.

And, I edited out the last sentence because afterwards I saw a post by Sageous I wanted to respond to later. I am not trying to antagonize, and I realize that I may have responded a bit emotionally myself. I originally wrote that because I would rather walk away from a discussion where I feel my emotion is interfering with true understanding than continue to prolong a back and forth of aggression.

Granted this may only be my perception of the matter, but I sense a tone of attack in your posts. I am happen to continue the discussion if this is not the case. I apologize for any part I may have had in contributing to the tone of aggressiveness I see overall in this thread.

"Extrasensory perception (ESP) involves reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind. The term was coined by Frederic Myers,[1] and adopted by Duke University psychologist J. B. Rhine to denote psychic abilities such as telepathy, clairaudience, and clairvoyance, and their trans-temporal operation as precognition or retrocognition."

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.

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.

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

Because that's me.

You sir are busted. You are a skeptic yet you said you aren't at all. You actually IS and always WAS playing with this thread and with the people here debating. I don't waste my time on skeptics. You are actually a crock! And a con, goodbye!

I fail to see how this debate has progressed at all.
Here's a synopsis of the thread.
1) Three or four user's believe that it could exist but they want a controlled scientific study.
2) Many users state that they agree that this would work but that they believe because they have experienced it themselves.

The argument has barely changed for the past three pages. I mean I've read the same argument coming from both sides about 4 or 5 times now, it seems like an agreement has already been reached but certain users just keep replying an going over the same information.

Originally Posted by Jakob

No, she clearly demanded that I show her a study which disproves shared dreaming, or a scientist who says that shared dreaming is impossible. Do I really need to go back and quote her?

She said that, but not at all with the point you claim she was making. I explained the point, as I understood it. But since you still repeat your assertion without actually addressing what I said, this tends to confirm that you are misunderstanding people on purpose.

Originally Posted by Jakob

That is actually the only example, and there is a very simple reason for that one little mistake. You were defending hathor28, so I assumed you were her sidekick.

Most of your other assumptions are wrong also, and also insincere, by all appearances. If you can't tell the truth about Hathnor's statement, and engage honestly with my attempted clarification, there's no point in discussing anything else. That example is as good as any.

Ah, Nomad, what hath thou wrought?

... at least I attempted to change/redirect the subject; sorry I failed!

Ignore her, Jakob. I know it's hard to do and the urge to have the last word is overpowering sometimes, but you just have to let it go. You shouldn't have to prove yourself to her, and it's not bringing any progress to the thread.

^^ I'm off to work now, Sageous, but I will reply your earlier post when I get home tonight!

I'm down to change/redirect the subject, too.

Jakob is a skeptic. He proved it himself. Nothing else to talk or respond to him about, because i know who he is and never liked his reaction and explanation in his first post.
He is a very odd skeptic that believes in certain things, but not fully. Which means it is useless to debate with such a person.

Ah yes, because partial-skeptism doesn't exist.

No, because it is impossible to debate with. And this debate that just happened here is proof it will only lead to circles. Plus Jakob might be intentionally misunderstanding things or leading things to worsen the debate which is not etiquette to do in debating.

So...Is anyone going to talk about the actual feasibility of shared dreaming? We aren't really talking about shared dreaming. The "skeptics" have us distracted in an epistemological circle jerk.

Its fine to "believe" or "doubt" but lets talk about experiences. Lets talk about physics, and the mechanics of this phenomena.

What about shared dreaming is real? Why would it exist in the first place? What spiritual experiences share some attributes with shared dreaming?

It seems we have more to talk about then burden of proof, believable evidence, or case studies. We all have personal spiritual/psychic experiences to draw from, how about that?
I see a lot of court room terminology, yet the defendant is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. As usual, this perception is flipped because we lack the ability to empathize with others experiences.

You don't have to believe yourself to accept another persons experience. To say it doesnt exist at all until you experience it would be a very unfortunate way to live. Imagination is so much more important than knowledge. (paraphrasing Einstein)

I agree, how about we discuss what seems to be the most common type of experiences with shared dreaming. I believe the main agreement to go around is that it does not work through some kind of conventional method of communication I.E it is not transmitted through anything in the electro-magnetic spectrum. So what are your experiences, do you believe to actually link to another dimension/ realm, do you think it works through some form of advanced science or do you believe that everyone is connected by a spiritual link. Share your ideas

Originally Posted by Chimpertainment

Lets talk about physics, and the mechanics of this phenomena.
What about shared dreaming is real? Why would it exist in the first place? What spiritual experiences share some attributes with shared dreaming?

Actually that was what i was explaining to jakob just now about ESP and how it attributes and is somehow similar to shared dreaming. Also parapsychology. lol

Why would shared dreaming exist in the first place?

This poses an interesting question, perhaps as an alternate means to communication? Then again their is no 'natural' means of communication, so perhaps this would be that means provided for us? Maybe the reason we don't have many shared dreams is that simply we don't have many, if not any shared dreamers that actively practice and refine methods.

wow! I wish i could quit my job so that i could keep up with this thread.

so last night- even though it made me feel like an idiot- i tried focusing really hard on a picture of a passenger jet and sending the image to my wife while she was asleep. Not that this is shared dreaming per se, but i wanted to just test the idea that a dreaming mind could somehow be receptive to such things. The second i was finished i woke her up and asked her what she was dreaming about, and she said "i think i was at an airport." My heart skipped a beat. But she went about how there was a Target there and she was shopping for makeup. I asked her if she saw any airplanes and she said no... and not to wake her up ever again.

People say skeptic like it's a dirty word, but having a properly functioning bullshit detector is a very important thing in life. I'm sure you agree. It would have been easy- without skepticism- to say "well, she was dreaming about an airport, so that's close enough." But you can't deny that the simplest explanation is also the most probable. It was a coincidence. If i were to do that every night, and she were to come up with something different but related (i.e. i am "sending" her a picture of a bowling ball and she is dreaming about bowling) the chances of it being a coincidence decrease. And by the way, i plan to keep trying it whether she likes it or not. (For the record, i come down firmly on the side of dream sharing and like phenomena being impossible. But one's own beliefs have to be challenged, or they're unfounded.)

I guess what i'm slowly working towards saying is: if shared dreaming were common, it would be pretty well known and accepted ("hey, what did you think of that dream we had last night?"). If it's rare, it is in my opinion much more attributable to coincidence than some sort of paranormal occurrence.

You should've asked her that in the morning when all is awake, not during sleep and you wake her up. You just disrupted her dreaming which means you didn't give it time to let her fully dream. She was in an airport but didn't see planes, only because you probably woke her up at a wrong time and you didn't let your message go through fully. You are not doing it right your not suppose to interrupt someones dreaming while asleep. PLUS you don't see this as a good side that you actually read her mind at the time you were trying to send a message.
You are unaware that you just read her mind but still want to do this "sending a message" thing, you are not focus on other possible things like ESP. My advice is first test telepathy, then you can try sending a message to someones dreams. Focus on both not just one ok?

Originally Posted by zombiesarebad

wow! I wish i could quit my job so that i could keep up with this thread.

so last night- even though it made me feel like an idiot- i tried focusing really hard on a picture of a passenger jet and sending the image to my wife while she was asleep. Not that this is shared dreaming per se, but i wanted to just test the idea that a dreaming mind could somehow be receptive to such things. The second i was finished i woke her up and asked her what she was dreaming about, and she said "i think i was at an airport." My heart skipped a beat. But she went about how there was a Target there and she was shopping for makeup. I asked here if she saw any airplanes and she said no... and not to wake her up ever again.

People say skeptic like it's a dirty word, but having a properly functioning bullshit detector is a very important thing in life. I'm sure you agree. It would have been easy- without skepticism- to say "well, she was dreaming about an airport, so that's close enough." But you can't deny that the simplest explanation is also the most probable. It was a coincidence. If i were to do that every night, and she were to come up with something different but related (i.e. i am "sending" her a picture of a bowling ball and she is dreaming about bowling) the chances of it being a coincidence decrease. And by the way, i plan to keep trying it whether she likes it or not. (For the record, i come down firmly on the side of dream sharing and like phenomena being impossible. But one's own beliefs have to be challenged, or they're unfounded.)

I guess what i'm slowly working towards saying is: if shared dreaming were common, it would be pretty well known and accepted ("hey, what did you think of that dream we had last night?"). If it's rare, it is in my opinion much more attributable to coincidence than some sort of paranormal occurrence.

I'm thinking that maybe it could be trained and refined as a talent, although zombiesarebad's experience seems much the same as a 'pro' like WalkingNomad. His shared dreams are often fuzzy and the other user has only a closely or loosely-related dream as him, although his lucid experiences have turned out much better, though recall seems harder from what I read from his DJ. I'd actually like to hear more from him on this subject, since he's one of the driving forces pushing it forward in the forums, not to mention the creator of this thread.

sorry, but how did i read her mind? And how am i not doing it right? I don't think there is an instruction manual for this sort of thing.

Originally Posted by zombiesarebad

sorry, but how did i read her mind? And how am i not doing it right? I don't think there is an instruction manual for this sort of thing.

In other words her opinion is that the only way you can share a dream is by telepathy, which could easily be incorrect because their is no theory that I know of behind dream sharing that everyone strongly agrees to. She's trying to make her opinions fact, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by hathor28

Actually that was what i was explaining to jakob just now about ESP and how it attributes and is somehow similar to shared dreaming. Also parapsychology. lol

Seeing how Jakob actually doesn't rule out the existence of ESP and has said that repeatedly, it would be pretty irrational to criticize Jakob for not believing in ESP.

I still don't know whether I should start ignoring you. You're amusing sometimes. Unintentionally, of course.