Thread: I see a bunch of BS

[IMG][/IMG]
What skeptics think.

Originally Posted by hathor28

this isn't a joke

That's why it's funny.

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

I got in a car accident.

My disk is pinching my spinal cord.

It hurts to type.

This is why I barely post.

...

Stating opinions as fact is called a fallacious argument.

And THIS logical fallacy is called an appeal to emotion.

Thanks for the appreciation debrajane, it will be a hard 3 months but worth it. The open source nature will mean you can add/tweak it how you want to suit your own shared dream goals.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

And THIS logical fallacy is called an appeal to emotion.

Actually he was responding directly to a concern I brought up, Mindraker ... no fallacy committed this time, unless I started it.

Originally Posted by DreiHundert

I can't help but feel as though OP's post is directed specifically at me, even though it is probably not.

Ha ha, its like a Rorschach inkblot of vitriol. Or a high end exotic dancer who makes every man in the room feel like she's dancing just for him. No, her attention belongs to me! I am the most pretentiously long winded poster!

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

That's why it's funny.

Originally Posted by Crossroadsguide

Thanks for the appreciation debrajane, it will be a hard 3 months but worth it. The open source nature will mean you can add/tweak it how you want to suit your own shared dream goals.

Sometimes you can look around the room while in trance even if your eyes are closed and you're wearing an eye mask. (11:44 piont of 37 min L 101)

This is called the Transparent eyelids effect. And it's usefull because it gives you a reality check you can use to test for sure that you've entered a subconscious focus..

The transperent eyelids are a good reality check you can use to tell if you'ved tuned to the subconscious because you don't have to move to do the check.

Dear Crossroadsguide, that's from my copy of the original 2008, 37minute download I got from Nick Newport when he was active on his site Saltcube.

(12:16) The transparent eyelids effect works because when you are dreaming you can usually see things and it does'nt matter if your physical eyes are closed since you not focussed in your physical eyes.

You're focussed on your subconscious dream environment, which allows you to draw-in what ever sensory information you want from it, including sight.

You might not always get the transparent eyelids effect but if you do you can be sure you're in the subconscious. (12:40)

Forget the skeptics.

If you're experiencing something amazing, and the skeptics refuse to engage in some practice to achieve what you 'have', then so be it. I mean... if you're experiencing something amazing, then why'd you care if the 'stupid' skeptics are missing out?

Take just the concept of lucid dreaming itself. Without the recent scientifically published studies, a lot of skeptics would refuse that it's possible. Yeah, you can throw tons of personal reports their way, but they won't believe those. Will they then practice some bizarre technique ending in -ILD to achieve it? Naa, it's bs of course. So how're they convinced of its truth? 1. Scientific studies, and 2. personal experience. If these are not present, and they refuse to believe it's possible, then who's missing out? ^_^


I'd be laughing at them (me being one of them) if I was in such a situation. Just doesn't happen to me -- 'cept when some of my university lecturers outright refused the possibility of lucid dreaming. Though it never bothered me, for I experience it.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Forget the skeptics.

If you're experiencing something amazing, and the skeptics refuse to engage in some practice to achieve what you 'have', then so be it. I mean... if you're experiencing something amazing, then why'd you care if the 'stupid' skeptics are missing out?

That's fine if you are having a grand old time -- please have a grand old time. But *believing* something to be a certain way does not necessarily make it so. As much as I believe the paint on my walls to be green, the paint is unfortunately white.

Your quote don't make sense about what this post is about. It's not about blindly believing, it's about believing after experiencing.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

As much as I believe the paint on my walls to be green, the paint is unfortunately white.

I am sure once someone says "lucid dreaming" can't be done, all of you will step in to prove it right? This post is exactly what it is! There is skeptics out there that really don't believe in dreams period. And you think what this post is trying to say is impossible?

Originally Posted by hathor28

I am sure once someone says "lucid dreaming" can't be done, all of you will step in to prove it right? This post is exactly what it is! There is skeptics out there that really don't believe in dreams period. And you think what this post is trying to say is impossible?

Indeed -- I'm simply saying to not take anyone's word on something if there is potential (and it's practical) to experience the claim first-hand. The 'reality' of the experience is irrelevant... who cares? If the experience gives you something positive to feel or witness, then that's all that matters.

My university professors won't believe any reasonable argument I give them about the possibility of lucid dreaming (assuming there were no documented studies in peer reviewed journals), yet they'd instantly change their mind if they happened to have a spontaneous DILD. Experience over words - that is all.


By the way, I've absolutely no idea what the thread is specifically referring to. I'm merely responding to a general principle.

Originally Posted by hathor28

Your quote don't make sense about what this post is about. It's not about blindly believing, it's about believing after experiencing.

OK, I'll give a better example. My grandmother had a hip operation, and was still on strong pain medications, lying in her bed, and she was delirious. A green night light was shining on her face, and as she looked in the mirror across the room, she swore she saw a ghost, when she was actually seeing her own reflection.

To her, that ghost was awfully real, although to everyone else, that ghost was surely not real.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

OK, I'll give a better example. My grandmother had a hip operation, and was still on strong pain medications, lying in her bed, and she was delirious. A green night light was shining on her face, and as she looked in the mirror across the room, she swore she saw a ghost, when she was actually seeing her own reflection.

To her, that ghost was awfully real, although to everyone else, that ghost was surely not real.

This is like saying your grandmother thought she had a cracked rib when as far as other people could see she had a bad bruise, therefore nobody else has ever had a cracked rib. Here there are two fallacies packed into the same argument, either one of which undermines it completely.

I don't think you should believe in shared dreaming if its outside of your experience, and if it appears plausible to you that people who claim shared dreaming are lying or deluded. But you don't actually know what other people have experienced, or what objective evidence was connected to their experiences, and you haven't tried to find out. If you're not interested that's fine, but all you're doing is showing off your ignorance.

Dear Wolfwood

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Indeed -- I'm simply saying to not take anyone's word on something if there is potential (and it's practical) to experience the claim first-hand. The 'reality' of the experience is irrelevant... who cares? If the experience gives you something positive to feel or witness, then that's all that matters.

(...)

By the way, I've absolutely no idea what the thread is specifically referring to. I'm merely responding to a general principle.

I think the thread is specifically referring to folk getting caught-up in fruitless philosophical speculation.

The opening post is this:

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

I see a bunch of long rehashed tl;dr arguments of people who like to hear themselves talk.

skeptics on this forum are as ridiculous as atheists. you cannot prove God exists. you cannot prove god does not exist.

you state opinions as fact, and reject the fact that you are using fallacious arguments.

you base your premises on bullshit.

instead, base your premises on what grows on the bullshit.

check your premise, wise guy.

Then the one who wrote the opening post replies to every one with this:

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

(...)

I see a bunch of people stating their opinions as fact. This is not being skeptical. This is not being experienced. Stating opinions as fact is called a fallacious argument.

(..)

You're running around in circles doing mental gymnastics wasting time on worthless semantics meanwhile you could be actually practicing inducing altered brainwave states.

So, Wolfwood

I see the this thread specifically refering to stop yapping and participate.

I see time dripping away. I see opportunities to prove the existance of god, (and so on and so forth) dying.

Originally Posted by debrajane

I see the this thread specifically refering to stop yapping and participate.

I see time dripping away. I see opportunities to prove the existance of god, (and so on and so forth) dying.

I think this gets towards another central part of the issue. Participate in what? Shared dreaming? I do that in some sense almost every night. Prove the existence of God to who? God, such as God may be, can easily prove his existence to anyone he wants to, if they're asking and ready.

I've never criticized your long posts of transcripts, I see nothing wrong with them. But do you seriously believe they're more useful than my "yapping" or anyone else's? Yes some people's posts aren't worth a lot, but that's because they don't put much time or thought into them, so they don't lose much either. If you think we're spending time here posting that we should spend doing something else, what is that other activity? We can't sleep all day. For myself, I'd rather be spending my time with my kids, but since I can't, for a couple more months at least, I'd rather pass my spare time talking about things that I care about than doing something else stupid like watching TV. So what is this other thing we should be doing besides discussion?

It seems what you're really getting at is you want us to join in projects you are involved with, and don't accept the choice of those who have declined. In other words, you want to control us, like in high school where people form clubs, elect officers, and try to get other people in their club. Here its the same, except the 'club' involves a particular style of shared dreaming.

I have never once tried to dissuade anyone from participating in any of your projects, or WakingNomad's. I'm not against these things, its just that they don't work for me, because of the way my muse works, which is something I value and want to preserve. Different strokes for different folks. I do sometimes give my opinion on activities that I consider unhealthy or dangerous, like use of narcotics, because I care about other people. But I have said nothing against projects like IOSDP. Can you not give us pompous intellectuals the same courtesy?

If you want to learn something from me, or teach me something, I'm open to that. In fact I think I have learned a little from you, and shared a dream in a mild way. That's what I'm into, learning and helping other people learn. I don't shared dream just for the sake of doing it, for me there has to be some growth purpose to it. I don't even think I can shared dream without that, its built into how it works for me. The skeptics aren't interested in being convinced, which is their prerogative, and we already know shared dreaming is real, so for me there's no trigger for it unless there's some spiritual growth question you have that connects somehow to what I think about. If that's the case, then I'm open.

Dear Shadowofwind

I appreciate you posts.

Yesterday the weekly rag came and the front page caught my attention.



because, when I came to Dreamviews I enthusiastically began a thingy and the first target was this:



Now, today, after reading you post 43 in WakingNomads thread called “I see a bunch of BS” I realize that the message in the Messenger is, “Not to worry, things are about to begin, in the Spring”



The Article continues inside the news paper saying that this “open, live, entertainment HUB” will open in the Spring.

The “thingy” that I enthusiastically began was my thread called:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f19/synchr...iendly-111740/

The very first “dream synchronicity” target was “the Pink, Piddling Dog.

I opened that thread in February 2011.

Now the Pink Piddling Dog is communicating. Look at those 4 WakingNomad types all over my Pink Piddling Dog. (hehehehheheheheh)

Yeah, that was the point. Participate in what?

I'm merely stating that if it's possible and reasonable to experience something first-hand, then do so. It's nonsensical to rely on arm-chair philosophy, if one can determine something through experience.

That's all I'm saying. If his post refers to shared dreaming, then from the onset I am on the side of disbelief. I won't assert it's absolutely impossible as if I know it's not, but given how my world is structured to my knowledge, it's difficult (through reasoning) to accept it as a possibility. That is why experience is necessary -- if I managed to intentionally have a shared dream with another, which satisfied my belief system, then I'd believe immediately in it, irrespective of what the mass or science has to say.

The problem for many is as follows: attempting to do something that you have no faith in working, whilst positive results would be absolutely mind-blowing, is difficult to practice... for the time invested could be wasted.

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 hathor28

Your quote don't make sense about what this post is about. It's not about blindly believing, it's about believing after experiencing.

I have experienced the Sun to go around the Earth; but it surely does not go around the Earth.

Just because our experiences tell us it is so does not necessarily make it so.

I have experienced the world to be flat; but the Earth is surely not flat.

Again, just because my experiences tell me something is so does not necessarily make it so.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

I have experienced the Sun to go around the Earth; but it surely does not go around the Earth.

Just because our experiences tell us it is so does not necessarily make it so.

I have experienced the world to be flat; but the Earth is surely not flat.

Again, just because my experiences tell me something is so does not necessarily make it so.

Sure, but the opposite's also true. Just because our experiences can be interpreted wrong doesn't mean they are wrong.

Originally Posted by MindGames

Sure, but the opposite's also true. Just because our experiences can be interpreted wrong doesn't mean they are wrong.

Also, he has not experienced the earth being flat. Go to any place where you have sufficient horizon to judge, such as at the seashore, and its very clearly curved. And he has not experienced the sun going around the earth either. He has seen only the relative motion. His point of course is that other people may add assumptions to their experiences, and his assertion is that's what people are doing with dreams. And certainly there is a lot of that going on. But to conclude that this is all that is going on, without even attempting to find out, is more than a little irrational.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Actually he was responding directly to a concern I brought up, Mindraker ... no fallacy committed this time, unless I started it.

Yes. I stated mere facts. Whether people care or not, I don't really give a shit, unless they are my friends.

When I see a bunch of BS, I am talking about not dreams specifically, I am talking about the way some of you debate.

You insult people, you make personal attacks.

You call yourselves "skeptics" but you state your personal opinion as fact.

On dreaming, shared dreaming, and "burden of proof," and science.

Science has proven we all dream.

Science has proven we can lucid dream.

Science has not proven shared dreaming.

Burden of proof does not exist. No one has to prove anything to anyone.

Believing something is not true because Science does not prove it, is just silly. The man who founded the religion of Science was inspired by an Angel that came to him in a dream with a ruler, and said, "Measure shit."

That is all.

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

The man who founded the religion of Science was inspired by an Angel that came to him in a dream with a ruler, and said, "Measure shit."

That is all.

That made my day.