Originally Posted by hermine_hesse
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 that's what you believe also, then yeah.
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.
My stance is, that whoever posesses psychic ability (which he can reproduce in a controlled environment) should have a strong motivation to prove skeptics such as James Randi wrong. It would not only make him rich, but he would shut the mouths of 95% of skeptics out there. The fact that no one has done it so far doesn't mean to me that psychic phenomena don't exist. It means that these phenomena occur at a much lower number than people assume, and that they might not be reproducable that easily. This fact that they might not be always reproducable makes them hard to test in a study.
Shared dreaming on the other hand, at least the DV-type of shared dreaming (discussed this a million times), is easy to reproduce. Why? Because the stories I've read on the internet make it seem as if it's a piece of cake (for those people who allegedly practice it). Therefore, it is a perfect candidate for the Randi challenge.
I hope you understood me now.
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.)
No you're not wrong at all.
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.
Well, the OP didn't say anything about what was allowed/not allowed in this discussion. I simply pointed out that it is much more important to me to prove if it does work at all, and then worry about how it works. People then started responding to my comments, and it went on from there.
Maybe some people are over estimating their experience with shared dreaming. But, who knows, maybe we are all under estimating it as well.
I honestly don't think so. I'm trying to be as honest as I possible. I believe over 90% of the dream sharing tales I've read on the internet are made up. What evidence have you or anyone else given me to believe otherwise?
No offense intended, but when tons of dream researchers who can LD easily haven't dedicated 0.01% of their books/articles to the concept of shared dreaming, and over a span of many years haven't reported that they have had one single shared dream, then I won't easily believe a kid on the internet who says he has one every week.
Stephen LaBerge is an expert in this field who can lucid dream at will every night, and after all these years he doesn't claim he can do dream sharing. Sure, maybe it's a special gift given only to some people, but I was a teenager, and I have gotten the urge sometimes to make up things to get attention and be "special."
Again, honesty.
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.
Well, I don't notice the aggressiveness coming from my side. Oh well.
|
|
Bookmarks