Thread: I want to learn Invading Dream

Subjective biases shape your perception, and thus your reality.

Believe nothing; test everything.

A requisite mindset for meaningful exploration and pursuit of deeper knowledge.

In simpler, more targeted terms: You are not required to believe anything. You must simply suspend or vanquish disbelief. Ideally, all belief shall fall away and leave you bare and exposed like a newborn babe. In such a state, reality itself becomes your playground and you are free to once against tests its limits without overbearing adults telling you what is true.

/philosophical waxing

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

One other thing to reiterate Steph: You've said several times now that you don't want private messages. You've also repeatedly said that people's anecdotes are things that can be explained in terms of coincidences, synchronous thinking, etc. But as I've told you repeatedly before, people are not going to post their strongest evidence in an internet forum, because its private. It takes something personal and fairly significant to make a strong supernatural dream experience. What you've essentially been saying all along is "I don't find your anecdotes to be at all convincing, but I don't want to hear anything more convincing." That's fine, but then you should take that into account when judging other people's assertions. I don't think anyone here cares much about whether or not you believe in shared dreaming. But you keep coming back and challenging people on the subject anyway, even though you want to keep it at arms length. Then we respond to your challenges. It sort of seems like you're trying to have it both ways. But I can see why you don't see it that way, since you don't actually know what we're all talking about, since you keep trying to interpret it from a distance, and then it looks like something else.

Too bad this experiment fell apart. I was quite interested in how you were going to find Steph among the many billions of minds from which to choose. You always are a bit vague in that department: given your disinterest in mysticism and the complete lack of any hard science to explain (much less prove) shared dreaming, I guess I can understand the vagueness. Yet still you are confident that it works, even if you do not know how... it would have been nice to see the process in action.

In modest defense of Steph: her arguments might get a bit harsh, but they seem generally valid or at least well-considered, and I doubt her position changes from thread to thread. What is wrong with her consistently raising objections to a decidedly questionable practice whose proof is almost entirely couched in anecdotal or faith-based "evidence?" I've seen you arguing regularly and persistently with people who muddle things like quantum mechanics (for instance); were you wrong to do that as well? Do you really think these forums would improve if they became pure echo-chambers for popular ideas? For what it's worth, you did not respond to her challenge; you offered her a "proof" with which you both seem to agree she is psychically unable to participate; is her honesty disingenuous for some reason? I think you perhaps should have both gone ahead with the experiment and saved the excuses until after a few honest attempts were made, as it would have validated both your sides (and levels of sincerity) nicely.

Also, you might not be interested in sharing private details on open forums, Shadowofwind, nor am I, but I think you and I are members of an extreme minority these days!

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

OK. I misread the nature of your interest, trying to guess why you keep returning to a subject you're not very interested in. I don't think your understanding of how I see you is accurate, even though you made your best guess about what my words mean. But that's probably not worth trying to clarify.

Its an inherently personal experience, I don't think you can do it without being open to a personal interaction. Its much easier to recognize with strangers because there's more potential to be shared that hasn't already been expressed through some other means. But it is personal, so if you're not comfortable with that with me, that's no fault of yours, and nothing to be done about it.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

One other thing to reiterate Steph: You've said several times now that you don't want private messages. You've also repeatedly said that people's anecdotes are things that can be explained in terms of coincidences, synchronous thinking, etc. But as I've told you repeatedly before, people are not going to post their strongest evidence in an internet forum, because its private. It takes something personal and fairly significant to make a strong supernatural dream experience. What you've essentially been saying all along is "I don't find your anecdotes to be at all convincing, but I don't want to hear anything more convincing." That's fine, but then you should take that into account when judging other people's assertions. I don't think anyone here cares much about whether or not you believe in shared dreaming. But you keep coming back and challenging people on the subject anyway, even though you want to keep it at arms length. Then we respond to your challenges. It sort of seems like you're trying to have it both ways. But I can see why you don't see it that way, since you don't actually know what we're all talking about, since you keep trying to interpret it from a distance, and then it looks like something else.

Uups - I've been editing in my post, without looking, if there was an answer - that's stupid now.
My last paragraph does tell you, why I do what I do - and yes - it was a misunderstanding. Again it feels I would get myself into a tangle of private conversation with you, which is not exactly what I wish to do.

By the way - I would have no problem to make our prior pm-exchange public - maybe a bit of my discomfort could be explained by not what you actually wrote, but somehow by the tone.
You know - you keep implying personal or even romantic and whatnot things directly in the thread, even.
I tried to ignore that - but if it had to be around that topic - no thank you.

More important than my personal feelings and rl concerns - I can't do it because of this:

If it all was about something, I wouldn't wish to put out in the open - how could I ever make a case with such a thing??
I guess - no I hope - that people are reading this thread, who don't post, but watch proceedings.
Now if I came and said:
Yes - shadowofwind has found out one of my deepest secrets:

Spoiler for respective secret:

lets say how I cheated on my husband last Thursday, and all details.

Not that such a thing was implied - but that would be something remotely convincing of that sort, wouldn't it?

Now - we pmed back and forth - and he could never, ever, ever have guessed something like that had happened without the explanation being dreamsharing.
Then I should tell people to blindly believe me? Not going to happen.
Wouldn't that be a huge letdown on my side - to the case of enlightenment? My case?

Sorry - if this is your only way - the really intimate and private and save-guarded stuff - then I take my acceptance of your challenge back.

Again - I declared my motives in the last paragraph of the other post. I believe it makes sense to debate stuff like that - because I believe it's good to stop blindly believing or worse - deluding oneself and even worse - others. And I quite like you beyonders on here and happen to have the same hobby. So that means I tend to care.

And I didn't fall out of the tree as an agnostic atheist, either - I have to thank others for that and I do.


The Cusp - do you want to come invade my lucid dreams - or nonlucids?

Sageous,

I did do the experiment and it failed. If it looks like I bailed before trying then I've done a poor job of explaining the process.

I have some vague and partially misinformed impression of who Steph is based on our previous interactions in relation to science fiction, music, and skepticism. I turn my attention towards that, and focus my intention around a question. The rest of how it works is subconscious. It doesn't depend on my being aware of how it works, any more than knowledge of how enzymes digest food is required to be able to eat. I agree that its vexing to some of us that we have no idea how it works, and I share that, but that's what it is.

I am not disinterested in mysticism. I've spent as much or more time and energy in mystic pursuits as anyone else here. I am however hostile towards mystic claims that I perceive to be false in their origin and maintenance.

Its true that I criticize hallucinogen use without being willing to try it. And this does weaken my argument. So I rely on people like you who have tried hallucinogens can shore things up a bit in that area.

Steph has repreatedly criticized people's statements in favor of shared dreaming while simultaneously shutting the door to the presentation of better evidence. I don't see anything like that in my criticisms of people's ill-informed statements about physics. If I were to get feedback that people are trying to answer my objections but I'm not listening, then I should pay attention to that. But I haven't been hearing that.

I think Steph should be free to say whatever she wants to. But then I'm going to say that I think she doesn't know what she's talking about, and doesn't want to know. As I keep trying to explain, I don't think that she should want to know. Its really OK for her not to muck around in other people's personal stuff. But then her opinions about that stuff are going to remain ill informed, and its OK for us to say that in response when she expresses them.

I did screw up a bit on my 'challenge' to her, I'd started liking that approach because it had worked quite well on a couple of other trolls. But had I been smarter I would have anticipated what would happen.

I do actually care a bit about what Steph thinks, because I like her and she's clearly more intelligent than other shared-dreaming critics, so I view her as sort of a best-available-qualified representative of her community. And this is something that I'm attached to. But I still leave her alone about it when she leaves it alone. I kept interpreting her activity on the subject as interest in it. But the nature of her interest is apparently not the same as what I'd assumed, its not the kind of open, exploratory kind of interest that I associate with science.

I don't buy her claim that she can't be interested in it if she doesn't believe in it. There are all sorts of things that I'm interested in that I don't believe in, and this very subject was like that for me for a long time. But I do believe that she's not interested, now that I understand, and there is no way for me or her to force that to change. Or maybe her desired distance is in relation to me in particular, but that's fine and reasonable too.

To me having a diversity of opinions is great. But it is a waste of time if people reiterate the same things without being willing to try to understand what other people are talking about. You've seen me try to defend Steph a lot, though maybe she'd have preferred I didn't. I still think my point to her about shared dreaming is valid. I can also make the same point to you. You have also been disinclined to try to share dreams with people, as far as I know. But as far as I can tell, you temper your criticism on account of what you're not interested in exploring. So it doesn't keep coming up as a huge hyprocrisy in your argument. I don't perceive that Steph is being dishonest, but I think that she's approaching the subject as if its something that its not, which does produce a similar kind of contradiction in her stance.

Actually I do know a couple of other people on this forum who also won't post their shared dream experiences. And I won't share all of mine even in private messages, since by definition they're shared, so someone else's privacy is at stake. You know more of my experiences than probably anyone else here, but there are still some I haven't shared with you, on account of other people's privacy.

I know it's to Sageous - but I'll take the opportunity.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

You've seen me try to defend Steph a lot, though maybe she'd have preferred I didn't. I still think my point to her about shared dreaming is valid. I can also make the same point to you. You have also been disinclined to try to share dreams with people, as far as I know. But as far as I can tell, you temper your criticism on account of what you're not interested in exploring. So it doesn't keep coming up as a huge hyprocrisy in your argument. I don't perceive that Steph is being dishonest, but I think that she's approaching the subject as if its something that its not, which does produce a similar kind of contradiction in her stance.

@Sageous I know you are fascinated, if not quite convinced of the concept, - why not give it a go with shadowofwind?
Not meant as a sort of push - I wonder, why. Thanks for your post by the way!

And I do not see a contradiction - see my offer to The Cusp.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

I did do the experiment and it failed. If it looks like I bailed before trying then I've done a poor job of explaining the process.

I have some vague and partially misinformed impression of who Steph is based on our previous interactions in relation to science fiction, music, and skepticism. I turn my attention towards that, and focus my intention around a question. The rest of how it works is subconscious. It doesn't depend on my being aware of how it works, any more than knowledge of how enzymes digest food is required to be able to eat. I agree that its vexing to some of us that we have no idea how it works, and I share that, but that's what it is.

Again - our PM back and forth is not a problem to put in here - I mean in this case it's me, and I agree. Maybe somebody can make sense of it.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

Steph has repreatedly criticized people's statements in favor of shared dreaming while simultaneously shutting the door to the presentation of better evidence. I don't see anything like that in my criticisms of people's ill-informed statements about physics. If I were to get feedback that people are trying to answer my objections but I'm not listening, then I should pay attention to that. But I haven't been hearing that.

That might be because there is an actual body of knowledge of physics, and once you challenge somebody's misconception - they either loose interest or look it up and find, that you were correct.
I do not shut any other door than the PM door - that doesn't sit right with me and it is absolutely useless even as anecdotal evidence.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

I think Steph should be free to say whatever she wants to. But then I'm going to say that I think she doesn't know what she's talking about, and doesn't want to know.
As I keep trying to explain, I don't think that she should want to know.
Its really OK for her not to muck around in other people's personal stuff. But then her opinions about that stuff are going to remain ill informed, and its OK for us to say that in response when she expresses them.

Again - why should evolution throw up something as marvellous as brain to brain contact, and with radar it seems, and postal code? Just to muck about in other people's personal stuff? Like the stuff, people are ashamed to publicly lay open?
But otherwise we are completely unable to make use of that medium - all we dreaming animals?
Come on - not bloody likely.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

I did screw up a bit on my 'challenge' to her, I'd started liking that approach because it had worked quite well on a couple of other trolls. But had I been smarter I would have anticipated what would happen.

So what is the actual cause, that your effort didn't yield something in your view?
That I didn't really want it? My fault for not going into a PM back and forth? Not wanting so much intimacy?
How did it work on the "trolls", by the way? Did they wander off, ashamed of what you found out and hoping you keep it secret?

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

I do actually care a bit about what Steph thinks, because I like her and she's clearly more intelligent than other shared-dreaming critics, so I view her as sort of a best-available-qualified representative of her community. And this is something that I'm attached to. But I still leave her alone about it when she leaves it alone. I kept interpreting her activity on the subject as interest in it. But the nature of her interest is apparently not the same as what I'd assumed, its not the kind of open, exploratory kind of interest that I associate with science.

Thank you for the flowers - now - where did I leave the path of science in our endeavour here?
And where, please, where have you walked it?

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

I don't buy her claim that she can't be interested in it if she doesn't believe in it. There are all sorts of things that I'm interested in that I don't believe in, and this very subject was like that for me for a long time. But I do believe that she's not interested, now that I understand, and there is no way for me or her to force that to change. Or maybe her desired distance is in relation to me in particular, but that's fine and reasonable too.

I am interested - I know, that I said the topic wouldn't be, if it was not for you people.
But to see, that I am and was interested, and really - look up my post, where I told you how my husband found even pondering the case silly, and where I admitted to a sort of excitement that came upon me. I nerved him and sat down and wrote a long post on the borders of faith and belief, and I seriously considered, what would convince me. High standards, sure enough - what I got was laughter from him.
My husband's reaction would be not being interested. I spend quite some time with this.
And I did think myself in an expectant mindset - did journal and imagine things, which would be sufficiently impressive to make me pause.
That's the way I wanted it - have something to analyse and post about.
I can not want to be wrong here, you see. But I will change my mind upon valid evidence. Even if only valid for me, having been there in the lucid dream, or other dream and telling you the story and why it convinced me or not.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

To me having a diversity of opinions is great. But it is a waste of time if people reiterate the same things without being willing to try to understand what other people are talking about.

What I do not understand is, why it had to be personal and private and not for public consumption.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

Actually I do know a couple of other people on this forum who also won't post their shared dream experiences. And I won't share all of mine even in private messages, since by definition they're shared, so someone else's privacy is at stake. You know more of my experiences than probably anyone else here, but there are still some I haven't shared with you, on account of other people's privacy.

So that's weird - it had to be something with real life negative consequences, if it came out, if I would insist on privacy. And ten times more so, if I were an ardent believer.

There is such a yearning among people to believe and to read something convincing.
So why is there nothing harmless of your doing, shadowofwind - why is it all so private, that the people are unwilling to be the heroes in the beyond with you?


I didn't follow The Cusp's link - but I know, there is stuff, which you have to disbelieve in order to deem it invalid.
Why would I believe people I do not know in real life, though?
Of course I do believe people - but only until it goes against what I consider my knowledge - if that happens - I am sceptical.
Honestly sceptical and able to admit to having been wrong - hope, I don't have to cite myself to show that.

I would honestly share, whatever I experience - again, if I wouldn't face rl consequences.

I even did a bit of "amygdala-tickling" and went about tickling other regions of the brain in visualisation.
And almost started to go about it hobby-scientifically - see how I can stretch expectation placebo diminishing or something.
I was too lazy then - or rather decided, my time was too valuable.
But the nice thing is - and why I like to play as well - I know now, that I am able to give myself a little moment of happiness by such a manoeuvre. The effect wanes, unfortunately.

Ramble - sorry.


No need to really answer or even in detail - don't waste your time on it shadowofwind, I mean this honestly.
I will try to post less.

Steph,

I think what it comes down to is there's no way to directly touch someone's mind, or to know anything about that, without doing that.

There isn't anything I've said to you privately that I'm not comfortable with posting. And you can post any of it you want to, if you redact any dream experiences I shared that involve members of my family, since I don't remember off hand what I might have said. You might also take care not to post stuff out of context.

I've commented to you more than once that there is a challenge in being spiritually open while keeping romantic feelings out of it, because this is in the nature of openness between people, and something that I think is worth being aware of if trying to share a dream. Consider the problems people have with Buddhist teachers for instance. Its a problem I'm sensitive to, and I'm not totally in control of my emotions in that regard. I'm not aware of having any feelings of that sort in relation to you that I don't have with most people though, so if it seemed otherwise I think you misunderstood. In any case, I've said many, many times in this forum that I think its completely reasonable to not want to share dreams on account of these issues. But then if you're not sharing dreams, you're not sharing dreams, at least not the way I do it. And then its not surprising that you seem to find no evidence for it. Of course you do not find evidence if you don't want it, however good your reasons may be for not wanting it.

You would have the same kind problem with DThoughts as with me I think, if trying to share a dream, based on my experience with him. Maybe Cusp is better at abstracting the dream experience while blocking the underlying sharing that its connected to. But if it doesn't work, that really doesn't tell you much about whether shared dreaming is possible. That's all I've been trying to say.

Apologies Steph for the mess I've helped make here for you, to a significant degree it is my fault. Hopefully we learned something and can just move on.

Shiiit - again I didn't reload before sending off my post - sorry - actual conclusion see my last post!
All good now! But I'd like to keep the rant, somehow..

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

There isn't anything I've said to you privately that I'm not comfortable with posting. And you can post any of it you want to, if you redact any dream experiences I shared that involve members of my family, since I don't remember off hand what I might have said. You might also take care not to post stuff out of context.

Please, shadowofwind - don't make me angry!!
You didn't share details of your wife's dreams - that was surely not it.
And how come you didn't check your pm account yet, and see, what you actually did pm?
You better go and do that, in case you suffer from selective amnesia!

If you feel I should consider your family, your wife in particular - how come you pmed me something like you did then?

My husband thinks I go too lightly on you - and that without reading the actual message - his criteria was cheesiness - and you brought quite a lot more, than I mentioned.

But I chose to believe that it is just your personality in some way. That you don't really understand, how such a communication should maybe rather go.
You know - to reassure me?

So shall I make it public then in it's entirety?

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

Apologies Steph for the mess I've helped make here for you, to a significant degree it is my fault. Hopefully we learned something and can just move on.

Is all good! Peace be with us!

I didn't see this post upon sending mine above one out ..
Your pm will stay that - private.

To UDIe:
If you do manage to invade someone else's dream and plan to do something not nice (not sure if that's your intention, perhaps "invade" was just a poor word choice), you might run into some dreamers who will fight back. I assume that if you are in their dream, then they would have some advantage, especially if they have any kind of dream consciousness.

Aside @The Cusp: I love how this conversation has revolved almost entirely around the notion of public and private channels, given post #10. I'm sure you share in my amusement, no? ^.^

Mzzkc: I don't think its necessarily easy to respect people's personal space without hiding stuff that's important to the discussion. I try to publicly show everything that I am, particularly the negative stuff, and this kind of openness is key to my peculiar flavor of psychism. But I try to protect other people's privacy the best I can. I kind of stepped in it a little bit in regards to Steph, so I hope its enough to say that both of us have been responding as reasonably as we can. Its not really fair to her for me to say things to her privately that impact the public conversation, though I never intended for that to happen. My typing fast without having time to read and think about everything carefully has confused things too, despite my disclaimers about that.

Steph: In a previous discussion with someone about attempting to share a dream, the other person warned me that they might try to fuck me, and hoped that I would just brush that off if it happened. I'm not cool with sex in dreams, but I am cool with talking about icky personal stuff like that. Not everyone else is. Had I said something like that to you, maybe your reaction would have been a lot more negative, or less negative, I don't know. My point is that the subject is inherently like this, and I've been doing the best with it that I can. I have never tried to reassure you, to the contrary, I've tried to be as openly creepy as I am and then some, so that you don't get into anything you're not comfortable with. My hope was that you'd either back off if you don't like what you feel, while adjusting your arguments accordingly, or wade forward with your armor up as much as you deem necessary. What I was trying to force you not to do was to back off while continuing to disparage stuff that you know nothing about because you've been unwilling to deal with what comes with it. Now I think I shouldn't have done that though, that its wrong to act like that. Maybe I should have said it more and done it less, rather than trying to show you. But yes of course my approach is unorthodox, that's how all this weird stuff became possible for me in the first place.

Regarding how the ability to share dreams 'evolved' if it seems to be good for nothing....Part of that is because our subconscious minds do this sort of thing a lot but screen it off from our conscious minds. People share thoughts a lot, even though they're not consciously in on it. Another part of it is that a big reason for our need for privacy is other people are untrustworthy. And I think that's true more of the animals in our world than in some other places. Our psychic ability is sort of a degenerate form of something that's stronger and more open elsewhere, and we have it because we're tied to those other places in ways that we don't recognize, because of the way our ability is stunted. These are the questions that interest me, and almost all of this other stuff is for me a side effect of trying to gain evidence and understand these issues. These are not the questions that interest you in the same way though, so I hope I haven't made things worse with this post instead of better.

Originally Posted by StephL

The Cusp - do you want to come invade my lucid dreams - or nonlucids?

Sorry, but I can't even get enough sleep to function as a normal human being. Being constantly woken up by barking dogs is just kills my recall. Of course that needn't necessarily stop me, but won't help to prove anything if I can't remember it.

One of these days I will sleep again, and I will terrorize you all!

One other relevant thing that it might help for me to acknowledge....were I less emotionally volatile and sensitive, I wouldn't be able to do this 'beyond dreaming' stuff. But then I'd be easier to deal with also. Some of the difficulty I cause people reflects my own fear, and how I try to protect myself.

Originally Posted by StephL

@Sageous I know you are fascinated, if not quite convinced of the concept, - why not give it a go with shadowofwind? Not meant as a sort of push - I wonder, why.

Who says I haven't been trying already?

Seriously, though, I really have no interest in communicating with people in dreams; that's enough of a bother in waking life. But my disinclination in playing the game doesn't mean I'm not very interested in its rules: I think I am more fascinated with the concept of shared dreaming than I am in actually participating in it. This is because if shared dreaming were real, so too would a whole lot of other things, so I am both very interested in it being real and in being there when it can be practiced practically.

I am obviously not a complete skeptic, though, as this post, some of my other posts, threads, and books already imply. I have even had many dreams that I could easily consider accidentally shared/invaded, for a variety of reasons. The trouble is, even if the phenomenon does exist, I'm not sure it is something that can happen on purpose, as it is simply too difficult to locate a specific target -- especially one with whom you are not already intimately attached. [It does need to be said here that Shadowofwind's theory and method of shared dreaming is the best I've come across to date]

If I happen to stumble across the nature and mechanism of sharing a dream intentionally, I will be excited but not surprised; and of course I'll share -- theory, process, and all.

Forget about trying to invade.

Just do WakingNomad's 10th rv thingy. (Click my Siggy). All that other stuff, including share dreaming, happens spontaneously when several people record dreams after gently and just for fun try to dream about:

"What's in the box?".

Here is an example from Nick Newport's second ever, Saltcube, dream remote viewing laboratory.

****

Originally Posted by havago

Post 19

8:04pm
9-July-2005

Participant 10:

I believe it to be a keychain, but i have not meditated on that as yet.

Post 21

1:25am
10-July-2005

Participant 5:

I just returned from an experience where I found a red key chain. It was just a little one that you could have all sorts of things in. The locking mechanism was made of plastic I think and the rest was some rope like material.*

In the experience I knew that it belonged to one of my friends that also appeared in the experience.

There was this lady telling another lady that she would bet that I could point out to them the owner of this key chain.*

However the experience took place in a strange enviroment and there was no signs that it was related to our RVing experiment so I thought nothing of it.

Now that you mention that you thought it could be a key chain I thought we might have experienced the same. I will continue my search.

That can be found in post number 14 of this thread:

***

http://www.dreamviews.com/beyond-dre...arget-2-a.html

***(13/247)

I don't think its necessarily easy to respect people's personal space without hiding stuff that's important to the discussion. I try to publicly show everything that I am, particularly the negative stuff, and this kind of openness is key to my peculiar flavor of psychism.

But I try to protect other people's privacy the best I can.
I kind of stepped in it a little bit in regards to Steph, so I hope its enough to say that both of us have been responding as reasonably as we can.
Its not really fair to her for me to say things to her privately that impact the public conversation, though I never intended for that to happen. My typing fast without having time to read and think about everything carefully has confused things too, despite my disclaimers about that.

Well, well, shadow - you can be happy I'm not hysterical or a feminist, who has her blades sharpened and ready in that regard. You keep provoking me, do you even notice?

This case deserves a bit more of attention it seems - I thought, you would be wise, happy that I accepted your apology and kept it down for a while.
Not so.

So lets shine some light into the filth, shall we?

It is you shadow, and only you, who gave anything private away - even about your wife and her feelings - and it is you, who opposes to make it public. Not me.

And I guess, that is your general tactic - to at least make sure, the other one is bound to privacy because she knows something about you.
Not because of her own privacy.
This is methodical and oh so convenient - once you manage to get somebody into such talk - they are bound by their courtesy to you!

Then comes the next level - besides you offering up something, you know a decent person would keep private for you.
Why I ominously suddenly wouldn't want to report about the whole affair.
Again not my privacy.

You can already observe that effect over the last posts of mine - I'm dancing the edge of trying to be nice and non-disruptive on a forum I love and to a person, I liked.
It is much, much easier to back off from you - like your mentioned "trolls" seem to have been doing, than take such a mouthful and publicly state, that what you understand under a shared dreaming attempt could easily be deemed sexual harassment - if willingly brought upon myself by agreeing while ignoring your hints.

Doing such a thing isn't easy for anybody.
But you got the wrong one, if you think, I am unable to do uneasy things!!


And then you had the cheek to call my backing off unscientific!! While you make sure, that there never can be a presentation of the anecdotal evidence.
Because of your privacy and even safety!!

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

I'm not cool with sex in dreams, but I am cool with talking about icky personal stuff like that. Not everyone else is. Had I said something like that to you, maybe your reaction would have been a lot more negative, or less negative, I don't know. My point is that the subject is inherently like this, and I've been doing the best with it that I can. I have never tried to reassure you, to the contrary, I've tried to be as openly creepy as I am and then some, so that you don't get into anything you're not comfortable with.

I am not cool with it and yes you did come on creepy in here already.
And I am convinced by now, that this is your method in making sure, no real sceptic gives you a try - especially not a female one.
More to the actual point of debate - as it used to be:
I can't believe that the whole phenomenon of shared dreaming is all and completely about sex.
You are not the only one on here after all - really guys and gals - is that what it is all about and always??

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

My hope was that you'd either back off if you don't like what you feel, while adjusting your arguments accordingly, or wade forward with your armor up as much as you deem necessary.

Oh - so your hope was not that we actually share a dream, but that I either turn away in disgust, or put on my rubber boots and raincoat? And hope it's not going to get much wetter, than it already is?

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

What I was trying to force you not to do was to back off while continuing to disparage stuff that you know nothing about because you've been unwilling to deal with what comes with it.
Now I think I shouldn't have done that though, that its wrong to act like that.
Maybe I should have said it more and done it less, rather than trying to show you. But yes of course my approach is unorthodox, that's how all this weird stuff became possible for me in the first place.

Oh boy yes, it is wrong!!
And I hope, you can see some wrong, you might have done to others by this opportunity as well!
Insight time, maybe.
I can only shudder, if I think about a teenage girl getting muddled up in your filth, just because she wanted to either believe or show it's all mumpitz. And probably never was heard from after that - at least not on topic. Or worse - find it all soo fascinating, that she put others up for it by bragging.

And the more I think about it and read your self-satisfied posts, the more I wonder, if I shouldn't put it out after all, and warn other wanna-be-sceptic-experimentalists of you! So better back the fuck off, or I might change my mind!

Originally Posted by Sageous

Who says I haven't been trying already?

So - what came of it?

Originally Posted by Sageous

Seriously, though, I really have no interest in communicating with people in dreams; that's enough of a bother in waking life. But my disinclination in playing the game doesn't mean I'm not very interested in its rules: I think I am more fascinated with the concept of shared dreaming than I am in actually participating in it. This is because if shared dreaming were real, so too would a whole lot of other things, so I am both very interested in it being real and in being there when it can be practiced practically.

Exactly - and where are the whole lot of other things at work?
Where are the dream-telepathic effects having to come to bearing on society? Imagine somebody like shadow, extracting his icky business, and not being oh so noble to do it for our edification only.
Somebody milking it and making it public, blackmailing money from people?
Even if only that would work - we all would know about it and try to protect us from it.
Come on.
It would be so monumental and going both ways - the nice and the nasty - where on earth is the fallout?

Originally Posted by Sageous

[It does need to be said here that Shadowofwind's theory and method of shared dreaming is the best I've come across to date]
If I happen to stumble across the nature and mechanism of sharing a dream intentionally, I will be excited but not surprised; and of course I'll share -- theory, process, and all.

So it didn't work with shadow?
Pray tell me - why is his the best method you came across then?
Because impressionable people - following the demographic on here probably young girls and boys - have red-headedly admitted to icky-information-transfer with him? Come on - I think higher of you!

I don't have time for anything like a point by point response, but a few main things:

Steph, in your latest posts you seem to have grossly distorted nearly everything I tried to say. That may be mostly my fault for poor communication, but that's how it looks to me.

I've been nothing but open and totally honest with you and everyone else in the years I've been posting here. I don't see how there's anything wrong with me not wanting to post other people's personal information without asking and getting their permission. And I don't see how else I could act that would be more appropriate. I try to be cognizant of my own shortcomings, rather than hiding stuff or trying to pin it on other people, so I point out and apologize for stuff even if its only a very small part of where I'm coming from. As 'creepy' as I may be, don't see how you can condemn who I am while having any idea what other people are like behind their most public persona. Most people are a bit creepy, if you get to know them well enough. Most people try to hide that, and only show it in social circles that they think would understand. People try to manipulate other people by showing only what gets them what they want. I'm trying hard to treat people right, because I believe in the golden rule, and it seems that you're trying to penalize me for that, reading nefarious motives into it.

Right or wrong, I'm pretty much 100% sure after years of experimentation that something like telepathy is possible. This has implications that I care about. I'm doing the best I can with it.

All along my points have been consistent. If you want to share someone else's mental space while sleeping, that tends to involve exposing yourself to who they are, it doesn't happen at a superficial social level. If you're not willing to do that, then that's perfectly reasonable and I support that, but then you don't know what you're talking about when you criticize things that you haven't explored and tried to understand.

I never thought or said that shared dreaming is completely about sex, and on balance I can't see how a reasonable person could get that from me. But sexual impulses are a part of psychology, particularly male psychology. So if you're in another person's mind, you have to be able to deal with that. I haven't had any thoughts about to you that normal people would consider sexual, I brought that up as an example of the sort of thing that other people deal with when shared dreaming. Its just a part of life. I don't see how we can discuss shared dreaming if we can't talk about stuff that's in almost all human minds. Yes I try to give you a clear picture what you're getting into if trying to share a dream with me. No this isn't some kind of twisted plot to deceive people and protect lies about paranormal phenomena. If you're OK with knowing me, and a lot of people have been, then you can share some experiences with me, as some other people on this site have. If you're not OK with it, then you can choose not to, and there's nothing wrong with that. Its not very complicated. But then if you say that shared dreaming isn't real, I'm going to say that you don't know what you're talking about, and that its presumptuous for you to say that when you haven't tried it, because I know first hand that it is possible. What else can I do or say that is honest? It seems you must not understand me, because you flip back and forth between friendly and hostile, and I've never changed where I'm coming from the whole time. If you want nothing to do with me I think that's reasonable. But I don't think your characterization of my character is fair or reasonable.

I really am fantastically busy. I type all this that I have because its on a topic that is very important in my life. Earlier you suggested everything was cool and there was no reason for you to post my private message. Then I tried to express some things I'd already said in a slightly different way, and you're not happy again. If you want, I can go through and post all of our previous messages that I have, I just need time to go back through it first, and haven't had that time. I don't think its essentially different from what I've been saying here. We talked about music, and science fiction, and I shared a few dream anecdotes which I may not have posted anywhere but which I'll post if you think its really important. Most of that stuff I have posted though. Everything else I said is just the same stuff I've been saying here. I think we're making too much of the private vs public message issue, which is partially a consequence of my hurried writing, and describing the problem that way rather than thinking through better to the essence of what I was trying to say. The underlying issue is that sharing is personal. I can post everything publicly, but sharing is still personal. If you want to understand someone, its still personal, you still have to be willing to get into their mental space a little bit.

When I interview for a job, I don't try to pretend I'm someone I'm not. I show the bad stuff intentionally, so that I know if people can deal with it, rather than having it come out later. That's no different than what I've been trying to do here. There's nothing wrong or misleading about that. I really did try to share a dream with you, and I got as far with it as I could, while trying to address the barriers the best I could. I didn't say the barriers were all in you, some of them are in me. But it doesn't seem there's a constructive way that I can explain that.

Yes my shared dreaming method sucks, as has been illustrated here 10 times over. I'll try to develop a better one. But its real, even though its not easy to demonstrate, and so far its the best I've got. If other people can do better, I take off my hat to them.

Just for the record, here are all of the dream experiences that I've had that I've hesitated to post:

Three premonitions of fatal accidents. One premonition of a suicide. One premonition of a miscarriage. One witnessed sex scene. One vision of someone's personal symbol for their higher self. A dream about a party that someone else also dreamed about.

Additionally: Any dream that I have had about someone else that seems to at least partially be about them, even if its 70% about me, even if there's nothing very sensitive in it, and even if there's a good chance I'm wrong about the other 30%.

Off hand that's all I can think of, from a much, much larger collection of interesting dreams. But those dreams did involve more objectively/sensately real and/or demonstrable evidence than most of the others. And in every case, with all of my dreams, there is a personal element which you can't just screen out then expect to understand anything.

Furthermore, if I do share a dream with someone else, the content is almost always going to be personal, because that's the stuff that the subconscious part of us which is capable of shared dreaming cares about. If someone doesn't mind me posting speculative personal stuff, I'm good with that. Otherwise, if private channels are closed, then we won't even have the experience, because my subconscious tries not to force stuff the other person doesn't want. This isn't a cop-out. If someone really is cool with me being in their mind, then generally this seems to be possible. And if they say they want me to force my way in, then maybe I can do that too, though that doesn't seem very civilized. This is why I suggested 'deep' philosophical topics, because those can be more abstract and comfortable, and my subconscious does care about those.

I guess I'm still game if anyone else wants to try it. Like Cusp, sleep deprivation is a bit of a barrier for me right now, but I am still having dreams.

Originally Posted by StephL

Because impressionable people - following the demographic on here probably young girls and boys - have red-headedly admitted to icky-information-transfer with him? Come on - I think higher of you!

You're making hyperbolic and slanderous stuff up about me that's not real. The people I've interacted with in relation to dreams have ranged from late 20's to late 40's and older. I don't think Sageous or Dthoughts would describe their interactions with me as icky, though I've shared much more personal stuff with them than I have with you or anyone else. I don't understand how you can think your behavior here is OK.

[Edit. OK, maybe I do understand. You do not understand me. You're reacting rationally, if erratically, to what you see.]

[2nd Edit: OK, there's another angle to this I wasn't seeing, which helps explain why your response varied so much from one post to another. Would have realized it right away if I had more time then to read carefully. You deserve an apology from me, but to a significant extent this is not my problem.]

I already apologized, and I'll apologize again now for good measure: I'm sorry. I've picked my words poorly. But I really did do the best I can.

Attempted clarifications seem to be a minefield, but here's another one. I used the word 'naked' in my e-mail to you to metaphorically describe my feeling of closeness or vulnerability to a woman in a dream who was not literally naked, and who I clearly stated does not primarily represent you. I'm sorry that made you uncomfortable. And maybe my use of the word 'fuck' in a previous post triggered a bad reaction, but geez, this is the internet, and it wasn't even about you. In start trek people mind meld, and I've used that phrase to describe a shared dream, because its like that as far as it goes. You imagine people can do this without exposing something of their true selves? I'm sorry you hate me. Just leave me alone now if you want to. But if you post about how shared dreaming is nonsense, I still may reply and say you're poorly informed, and for better or worse seem to lack the inclination or temperament to become better informed. I am sorry. Failed experiment. Failed so bad as to erase maybe all the rest of the successes, I don't know.

Too Long/Didn't Read for most of your last posts, shadowofwind. It is probably to the best.
Is good - I won't be nitpicky - I keep it at that - I didn't read all you wrote above, but I read, that you apologize, and I accept that.

You better drop trying to make a "scientific" impression on here, though. That's an insult to science, with your methods.

Method as in making people believe, they made significant personal experiences, but disable them from making them public and open to critical debate.
If only to protect your privacy and reputation - or for some completely harmless reason - doesn't matter. They are cut off from reflecting their experience off other people's minds. To avoid confirmation bias.
The scientific method always entails peer review - among other things exactly because of that reason.

And the other aspect is, that I came to the impression, that you consciously alienate open-minded sceptics by throwing your private stuff at them, and hoping they shut up, in order not to feel embarrassed, or embarrass you.

This is not scientific whatsoever.
You often seem to strengthen your position with the rational thinking bunch by being pretty sceptical about a lot of woo – everything than your own explicitly vague flavour, actually.
You have certain knowledge of physics, and a job in (quasi-) scientific realms – and so you tend to get taken more seriously than many others.

But you are no better in being applicable to being taken seriously by somebody having something better to do.

@The Cusp: I completely understand and respect your sentiments to postpone or drop that.
Happy dreamings then, and may superb recall and high lucidity be with us!
Us all!


I have the - is LDing satanic? - debate going as well, got to get back to that eventually – and I’m happy to step away from this one. At least for now.
I anyway want to rather concentrate on better recall and lucidity, and creating plants and swimming among planetary nebulae and visit Jupiter and aliens and so on. Superficial little me.

Steph,

You can post my messages to you if you want to. Make all of it public.

You clearly don't understand what I do or do not understand or believe about science. No not everything I do is science, because science can not do everything. And many things that science was 300 years ago can not do what science is now. Most 'sceintific' realms are quasi-scientific. A great many papers published in refereed journals are terrible. So I won't deny that my employment as a research scientist has been quasi-scientific, in that sense, relative to the ideal. But you are in no position to judge my understanding or application of scientific principles, being almost completely uniformed about my thoughts or abilities in those areas, and extrapolating from a few overwrought experiences in these recent discussions. You also have little familiarity with what underpins the views I have that you don't accept, and how different that is from what underpins most other quasi-religious doctrines. But whatever, neither of us has time to become well informed about everything. Sometimes we have to guess a little, and you're making your best guess.