Printable View
Hello everyone, thanks for reading my post. I want to learn Dream Invasion. Like I want to invade other people's dream and want to telepathically communicate with them, is there anyone who will teach me, step by step, how invade someone else's dream.
Er - I don't know much about that sort of stuff, but it sounds like 'shared dreaming' and there's a whole thread dedicated to this: http://www.dreamviews.com/internatio...ut-thread.html
Moved to Beyond Dreaming
Anything else you want to learn while you're at it? Psychic intellectual property theft? Astral rape? Some altruistic person will be sure to want to help you.
:rolllaugh: :cackle:Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
Oh my gosh, haha :cackle: thanks for making my dayQuote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
Your pretty ignorant Udie. Please tell me when you say Dream Invasion you just mean shared dreaming and not scarring someone, because if you did I would be glad to slap you :D
bro who u replying on who's comment, u better double checkQuote:
Originally Posted by TwitchLucidity
Now now, let's play nice. Instead of name-calling, why don't we take this opportunity to educate everybody who stumbles upon this tread, what's the difference and why one is not so good and the other one is ok. :gab:
Okay, yeah peace. :D
The point is Udle is dream invasion is wrong, but if you really want to learn it their is sure to be someone who will love to teach you! :D
They won't be doing it over public channels though, if at all.
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzzkc
EDIT: Oh wait, I know what you mean.
If you want to do something that's morally questionable, we would like to know WHY you want to learn how to invade others peoples dreams, so yeah Why do you want to invade other people's dreams?
You guys are all doing it wrong. We should be asking our friend UdIe something much more interesting. How did he get to the conclusion that dream invasion is possible?
Hmmm? Obviously, UdIe read about it on the internet and was convinced by intrepid oneironauts of mystique and valor that such a feat must be possible, for they themselves had experienced it . Hardly an interesting or novel tale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
While ranting on in the religion subforum - snoop asked, why I wouldn't engage in topics like this one - so here I am - not meant to be condescending - I just really believe, a bit of illumination could so some good around the place.
Exactely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
Neither is dream-sharing possible.
Like usual – I am well aware, I can't prove a negative – so I can’t prove that – but really – would you believe anything else, less desirable, if the situation would look equivalent?
So many people are trying it, and nothing worth any notice ever came of it.
A realistic person would take the lack of valid evidence in consideration - the fact that it is well known, that the human mind can conjure up all sorts of subjective experiences - we should definitively know this as LDers - that relying on one's subjective feeling is not a good idea.
People also seem to adapt their experiences, even if far removed, to fit into pre-existing schemata - and tada - everybody feels validated.
Ultimately there is always a cryptic medium involved, through which some completely unknown energy-form would travel to transmit the needed information.
Physicists would be seriously delighted, if one of those supposed psychic persons would reveal the pass to a Noble Prize and a new field of physics to them.
Nope – not happening.
What is also not happening, is that a pair of sharing dreamers gets the 1.000.000 Dollars, that the Randi-challenge promises to give out for water-tight proof.
Wishful thinking is the source of faith.
Then there (are) were people making stuff up in order to simply impress others and become interesting.
Some want for make money with books and whatnot and put sensationalist stuff out - goes for Castaneda as well.
And then there are the faithful people experiencing things, which seem vaguely indicative of what they really, really wish they could do - it being soo fascinating.
That’s where the whole excitement comes from.
Oh – and Inception of course and any other stuff, made mystical for driving sales up, and cater to the people who love to shudder a bit and keep their superstitions cosily at heart - who wants to die after all?!
Attachment 6874 (Got a bit of a temperament - can type myself into serious exasperation at times .. soz)
How could there be a difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by gab
If it was possible to connect your mind from within the lucid dream on purpose – why shouldn’t it be possible to invade somebody’s dream?
It’s not as if there was any sort of manual how to do it, and security-measures being taken – nope – people seem to believe they can do it just like that – no problem.
Just to make sure – I believe, none of them are possible – and that on solid ground.
I could imagine, that it will actually one day be possible – but with the help of technology – something to really enable a connection from mind to mind – the old-fashioned way with electricity and radio or cables or whatnot – not wafting exotic yet to be found energy waves of some arcane frequency – or however the latest fad has it.
People supposedly show up in other people's dreams unexpectedly – if somebody was proficient in LDing and in actual "magic" - like The Cusp and others seem to have claimed in the past - piece of cake - same mechanism.
Another argument, why it's not bloody likely – we would see the fallout from that otherwise.
If it was possible – we’d see powertrips being played out and obviously, wouldn’t you think?
Seems people assume, only nice people could share dreams, and that the ether in some way would protect the nice lucid dreamers from the inevitable harm, that would follow, should their feats really be attainable.
Isn’t it interesting, how once the people claiming to do such feats quit doing that, or even quit posting – nobody seems to share dreams anymore – activity is way down in that department - so what is more likely - people bathing in other people's admiration - or - *insert insanity of the recent past*.
Seems in the moment, the willing members don’t get lucid in the first place. Shame that, sort of – or is there somebody willing to claim, they actively share dreams at the moment?
Come on everybody – a bit more sceptical thinking never hurts – and intellectual honesty is a virtue in my eyes – why delude oneself, even while deep down having the nagging feeling, that that’s what it is anyway?
And for Sageous - I have a theory, as to what those special DCs could be, of whom you and others report - and absolutely credibly.
The ones with the mind of their own.
Been conversing with Linkzelda about the tulpa concept, and I could imagine, that within your extended LDs over decades - you could have created truly autonomous thoughtforms - sentient from their perspective and not controllable by your consciousness. But dwelling in your brain and specifically in your lucid dreaming mind.
It seems possible to do something like this on purpose - even to take the thought-form into waking life and hallucinate it.
Something not at all like schizophrenia - but rather voluntarily induced multiple personality disorder without the "dis".
Which was a bit of a fashion diagnosis in the 80s/90s, and it's hardly ever being diagnosed these days.
Seems something like it can also be "in order" and quite fascinating indeed.
I've been daydreaming about sharing my mind with an AI, upon coming across it in books .. :alien:
Anyway - maybe during your long and surely narrative-rich LDs - spontaneous tulpas could have emerged - and that would be them. Maybe it could go faster, too.
You - but separated from you - an "other" - and whole and going a very different path - and worth nurturing, maybe.
Yeah, seriously, its about as crazy as believing in God right? Yet people claim to have moments when something so profound happens and they attribute it to God. Now I dont believe in a magic man in the sky, but I do believe in energy, either in a physical form or as many around here experience as thought form. I do know that when I was new here and getting to know a few people, I had a few very distinct feelings of my meditations being "invaded" by persons unknown. At that time, I did not know that some here were into that kind of thing. I'm skeptical about the whole dream sharing via lucid dreaming thing but that does not stop me from giving it a try. I just try to be a good sport and honestly post what I experience without attempting to attribute it to something or someone or some magical experience. Nothing wrong with trying something new in my book.
Hey now! I'm not even on this thread! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
As a little aside, here's a funny thing: I'm not a fan of shared-dreaming, or dream invasion for that matter; I never was -- I have to deal with enough people in waking life, why do the same in dreams? I've been fairly skeptical of it far more often than fairly supportive of it, I think. I even went on about it in my long dead Treatise on Proof thread (I remember taking a good bruising on that thread, too, daring people to question their own memories!). Yet I find myself writing about the ersatz phenomena in one form or another pretty regularly (i.e., they are featured prominently in all my books), and I ponder their potential nature even more.
I often ask myself about this fascination. I guess it's because if shared dreaming were possible, a whole lot of other things would be as well (as you already mentioned), and that is very exciting to me. It is fun to dream, and invigorating to imagine that there is an as yet undiscovered metaphysics created solely by our dreaming minds... and explaining those ever-accumulating unexplainable moments!
That is an interesting theory, and it certainly makes more sense than physics-defying concepts like projected thought energy to explain the strange encounters. I'm not sure I've managed to create unique, recurring, and sentient DC's; but then I wouldn't be, would I? ;)Quote:
I have a theory, as to what those special DCs could be, of whom you and others report - and absolutely credibly.
The ones with the mind of their own.
Been conversing with Linkzelda about the tulpa concept, and I could imagine, that within your extended LDs over decades - you could have created truly autonomous thoughtforms - sentient from their perspective and not controllable by your consciousness. But dwelling in your brain and specifically in your lucid dreaming mind.
I've been daydreaming about sharing my mind with an AI, upon coming across it in books ..
Anyway - maybe during your long and surely narrative-rich LDs - spontaneous tulpas could have emerged - and that would be them. Maybe it could go faster, too.
You - but separated from you - an "other" - and whole and going a very different path - and worth nurturing, maybe.
That would explain the strange DC's confusion about their origins as well (I have asked, many times), because if they exist only in my dreams, they very well could do so only in the "Here & Now" confines of NLD schemata. Curious; I'll have to give it some thought. Not too much though, because the thought of a bunch of sentient strangers just, well, living, in my mind is more than a little unsettling.
Great rant(s) BTW, Steph, you should visit these magical realms more often; your skepticism is a welcome and vital tonic!
Attachment 6880
Ah - I guessed, you'd take a peek in here, Sageous!
Everything is allowed in art - I fully agree, and deeply enjoy it - and the more imagination-invigoration - the better!
I have a foible for science fiction and also read fantasy quite often - lots of what ifs and I love it.
Thank you for considering my "theory" about DCs with a mind of their own!
If yours are not recurrent and don't stay coherent - I don't think, you had to worry about housing sentient beings, who have a reality beyond the here and now of the dream.
If somebody like this shows up out of the blue - she has probably just calved away from your mind acutely and comes back in the fold, once the dream is over - following my "theory".
I am yet to experience something like that - no wonder as a bloody novice - I couldn't even discern them, since I am not (yet?) always able to manipulate my DCs.
Linkzelda and his day-time tulpas - truly fascinating, but I quite strongly shy away from taking on such a project.
Maybe I'll try to cultivate a more or less consistent and such familiar dream character - a non-metaphysical dream-guide, though.
If you would do that properly and with a lot of attention to it - I guess, you'd end up creating a dream-time tulpa.
But taking it into the waking mind - or better split it out in waking as well - it frightens me.
Thank you again for motivating me to chime in in such topics - but I'm well aware how it could be seen as killjoying at best and polemics or even attacking at worst as well.
But I have a little appetite for ranting, lately ..Attachment 6881
Accidentally lost a bunch of text while gathering links to sources, so this will be quick...
There have been notable reports beyond the confines of Dreamviews which have demonstrated mutual/shared dreaming or--at the very least--something resembling the phenomena. I recommend looking into the relevant proceedings and publications of the IASD, and checking a Scholarly database for an interesting case study published in the Journal of Psychology (Volume 128, Issue 2, 1994; pgs 133-147) titled "Dream Sharing: A Case Study" (authors W. Jackson Davis & Marcos Frank).
As an aside: within Dreamviews itself, there once existed a select few members of exceptional skill and rapport who've demonstrated such phenomena. But again--results and methods were never shared through public channels. Primarily because of threads like this, I imagine.
I did look into the IASD repeatedly, and kept respectfully quiet. Show me one example, which would convince me, if the experiment would have been conducted seriously and under controlled conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzzkc
No real life contact between sharers for a while beforehand for example, and not using content overlap, but information transfer - both of which your psychology reference lacks.
Even if it wasn't completely void of validity to take reports on an internet forum as evidence - the actual examples really didn't convince me. Did I overlook the ones, where I actually had to start arguing?
As to that case study - it costs 30 Euro to acquire, and unless I see it - all I have is this:
And what comes to mind, is that the couple lived together, and they simply synchronized their dreams by close daytime contact - which then lead to dream-content overlap in about a third of their dreams, which they themselves selected for analysis.Quote:
Abstract
Dream reports were tape recorded each morning independently for 10 weeks by both members of an adult heterosexual couple who alleged they regularly shared dreams.
The transcribed reports were evaluated blind by 12 trained analysts using quantitative dream-content analysis.
The couple had identified 13 pairs of dreams (17% of the sample) as shared.
The mean percentage content overlap score of these 13 pairs (39.15%) was significantly greater than that of 80 randomly matched pairs of unshared dreams (5.23%).
The content overlap scores of each analyst correlated significantly with those of the unblinded male subject (r = .72).
The mean probability that the observed overlap in putatively shared dreams was caused by chance was calculated as 1 in 5 billion.
Shared dreams appeared to occur in a distinct temporal cycle of 30–35 days. Content overlap between shared dreams was greatest in three of seven categories; objects, themes, and effect.
Then - what does male unblinded subject mean?
Nobody would claim that dream-content overlap in a couple in close contact would be down to change - so this "impressive" number doesn't say anything without insight into their methods and mathematics.
Not convincing.
And why content overlap - why not password transfer?
I needed to see the actual study, to form an opinion - until then I'm highly sceptical, and I won't pay for it - shame it's not open access.
Remember the Randi-challenge?
Why did that couple not go ahead and win the 1.000.000 Dollar?
How do you know, this is true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzzkc
You even say, the salient content wasn't ever publicly available - but then you expect people to believe you?
Are you one of them - or how would you know?
And no - when I look into the IOSP these days - people struggle to become lucid in the first place - that's why it's quiet in the beyond. I struggle to become lucid as well - so my sincerest sympathies and no harm meant.
But if it really would be quiet, because of threads like this one, bringing a bit of common sense and clarity into people's heads -
that would actually be quite beneficent on different levels. People could stop wasting their time, trying to hunt down the SDing phantom, which simply doesn't make sense, instead of exploring lucidity for the wonder that it truly is for one. There are more worthwhile things out there to be passionate about!
:yddd:
If dream invading methods came naturally or were taught to people with bad intentions they could use it for bad things. Like making a person have sleepless nights. In order to share a dream the person who wants the dreamer to dream about them has to be good at lucid dreaming. They are most likely to succeed if they have a strong connection with the person. Like if their friends/family or talk about dreams together. If you want to invade random people's dreams it would be hard I think cause you have no target. It'd probably be like sending a messenger bird to the sky with not very good training. You don't know if it will get lost or find an actual target. But distinguishing a real dreamer in a dream from a DC is probably like this. You have to do something that will show its a dreamer but still be in control of your lucidity so you don't effect the dream by your thoughts. I don't know if that's possible, maybe it is but you'd probably need skill in stabilizing the dream. Here's an example of a dreamer action. If in the dream you see something bad happening and there is a person who seems to be more active than the rest.(trying to go through walls,windows,etc). If you see them active and out of all characters their like the focus point of the event; Than that could probably be a hint but it all comes up to knowing the answer to the question "what would a experienced lucid dreamer do, a non experienced dreamer who loses lucidity easily and a DC do? But the thing is your thoughts could effect the dream so figuring out if the person was really there would be hard. :P Everything written here is based on what I've read about dreaming, share dreaming and my lucid dreams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gab
One is done with permission (OK), the other one without (not OK). If done at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
I'm not going to get into an extended discussion about this.
I will, however, address the questions and concerns you've raised.
Could you please define the difference between "information transfer" and "content overlap"? Given the nature of dreams, I would think statistically significant content overlap would be sufficient to show phenomena such as mutual dreaming exists (if not necessarily explaining the mechanism behind it). If you are seeking evidence of telepathy or similar, there are more straightforward experiments which eliminate the inherent variables introduced by the dreaming mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Regardless, I'll see if I can get a copy of the study I have in mind (not sure it's been published yet). Though you might have to pay for that, too.
Probably not. Most of the "evidence" I've seen presented on these forums wouldn't convince me either.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
If I remember the study correctly, they recorded and identified the shared dreams independently of one another (the experiment was a double-blind study, afterall). As for the close contact throughout the day contributing to overlap: this is a valid observation. However, I would think (from my experience sharing [as in communicating with words] dreams with my SO each morning upon waking) such high overlap in somewhat exotic content (they provide a number of transcripts of the dreams in the article) to be rather unusual.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
At the end of the experiment, they trained the male subject to quantitatively evaluate the content overlap using the same methodology as the other twelve independent, blind analysts. Since he would be able to tell whose dream was whose, on what date they occurred, and the purpose of the experiment, he would be considered an unblind analyst.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
The math and methods are all presented in the article and have been extensively peer reviewed before publication.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
See my reasoning above for why password transfer at the dream level is wildly unnecessary, inefficient, and impractical.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Go to a local university or library. They'll most probably have a copy there for you to read in the serials section or in their academic database.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
For one, they (as a couple) would have been largely ineligible under the terms of the application: Challenge ApplicationQuote:
Originally Posted by StephL
I don't. But along that line of reasoning, how do you know that I or anyone else on this site has had any lucid dreams at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
There are chat logs and other records floating around, but I wouldn't expose their identities out of respect of their privacy. I'll point them towards this thread, and if they choose to comment on the matter, so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Is it difficult to think that someone who's been in the LDing community as long as myself doesn't have a number of friends I met here but now converse with outside these forums/the community?Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
And I agree. Folks who can't get lucid regularly shouldn't even be bothering with pursuing shared dreaming (except maybe as an "end-game" motivator) when they already have so much to explore. On the flip side, I'd imagine after a few hundred (or thousand) lucids a person might start seeking something deeper.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Thank you!
Great answer!
:happyface:
I can imagine a dream-content overlap being impressive enough to convince me, that I wouldn't want direct telepathic communication. I had to see the maths.
It's problematic, though, as you said yourself, to study a case with people in such close contact - seems the Randi-challenge agrees there. I'll keep it in mind, though, if I go to the uni-bib, which I'll theoretically had to do anyway in the next months.
And once you say, that what you believe, you believe on personal trust - that's fine with me as well.
Happy dreaming!
StephL, I actually have some personal experience of a form of "dream sharing" with members on this forum. Not sure if they are aware.
These are some hard to explain feats of consciousness but i have had instances of meeting Danon Oneironaut and seeing WakingNomad and Atras on deep introspective psychedelic journeys.
Surely, these wrinklings of my imagination are related to dreamsharing as well.
Anecdotal data is as good as it gets here. I would define myself as Skeptic as well. I even wrote an exceptionally long post on why i believe shared dreaming is unlikely when i first visited this forum.
As for my experience, I've had an instance of *Sober* communication in which i hallucinated Danon Oneironaut in my mind's eye and had a real-live conversation with him. Followed by a dream which included Danon Oneironaut. To be seen here Maybe.. - Dream Journals - Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views. Which is kind of a vague intuitive belief that the man in the dream who showed me around the Barn was actually Danon Oneironaut. It's an old dream but my memory actually filled an image for me, of him showing me around his barn. Not conclusive evidence in the least, but then again, i'm not trying to convince you of anything!
What is the god-spoken truth is that when I smoked DMT for the first time it was the image of Danon Oneironaut who showed me around a fully immersive world or dimension. His image functions as an initiatory in these realms. I do not think the mechanism is any different than Images of Shiva or Ganesh showing you around the Hindu dimensions as described in their religion. This tells me something about the possible mechanism for these experiences. Carl Jung has some literature on this form of dreaming. But i only know these things from hear-say, I have never actually delved deep into mythological writings or Carl jung for that matter.
What peaks my interest is that all these people that I have met in this hallucinatory form are all also seekers of "enlightenment". Or atleast spiritually inclined. This could mean something very special or it could just be that I look up to these people. I am not sure if that what I am talking about is even in the same realm as dreaming but what I have noticed is that it is hard to create an image of someone you haven't actually seen in real life. For instance, trying to assess a face to someone who i have never met seems impossible. When i try to assess a form of telepathic connection, all i get is feelings and images that are relative to former experiences and memories. I think that if i would try and form a Telepathic connection with you, Steph, that it is quite likely that you will appear to me as some kind of hyperdimensional-cat!! (Which would be quite awesome, lol!)
Besides that, IOSPD has some instances of good synchronistic dreams. On the surface these can be explained by shared thought-forms and interests. Like comic books. But when you really start going into details of the dream you find similarities that are unlikely the result of 'just' coincidence. But it is surely not as black-white as simply invading dreams. I think these things are very unlikely unless one is very lucid in dreams. Which i have no emperical data for myself, being such a lucid noob! :lol:
Hope i sucesfully injected a sense of light-heartedness in my post. Hehe. As a side-note. Since last week i have been actively trying to make a permanent mark on the shared dreaming-realm as imagined by IOSPD (Prontera). Except for now I have not yet released any information on what I have been doing but I hope to leave in imprint on their dreaming minds to assess validity of shared experience in a sort of double-blind study. It is surely going to be hard to prove it to anybody but myself. But who cares when you are actively having shared dreams for yourself. :alien:
One can surely hope! :bow:
You are sweet, Dthoughts, you really are.
If your heart is so much in it - all the luck with your planned study - try to be really honest with yourself and you will see.
What you describe above would be - in my view - representations of these respected members, which your mind creates for you - esp. if these members themselves are not aware of the communion having happened.
But you know how this is a possibility as well and have stated it so.
So peace be with you!
Attachment 6886
I did a bit of back and forth looking and I am pretty convinced now, that Dannon's avatar picture - which I also have on my computer - really shows a newly discovered animal: The Venezuelan Poodle Moth - thought, why not off topic this thread and give you a bigger picture of this most beautiful dream-guide animal you seem to have flying about in your dreams, Dthoughts:
http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/...ps7b43870c.jpg
That's intense. I am speechless. That's one hell of an animal.
Really many thanks for sharing. that's a frigging cool animal. Looks very happy as well.
Btw, had the worst night. Fell into bad habits and drained my energy. Slept enough hours but really did not get enough rest. Not quite on-topic but ye.. Have to go now. Can't really go much into this further.
Steph,Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Every time I notice one of your rants about how shared dreaming is impossible, I offer to prove it to you, and every time you turn me down. I don't think its unreasonable for you to not want to share dreams, but then I can't see how its not a farce to rail against people who believe in it. Just the fact that you don't want to try it seems to show something, why the reluctance if there's nothing there? It doesn't even take any of your time, you have to sleep every night anyway, the only thing that's required is your openness. I suggest you go ahead and try it enough to convince yourself whether its real or not. Then when you're going on a tirade about the lack of evidence, you won't be in the ridiculous position of avoiding the evidence that's available to you.
I agree that Castaneda is mostly nonsense.
The Randi challenge is a dishonest publicity stunt, or else a remarkably ignorant one. They set the statistical bar so high that few scientific studies could reach it on most subjects, and they set so many constraints on the experimental conditions that they've effectively barred investigation of everything except their own straw men.
Okay - I'm up for it, shadowofwind - I wasn't really interested, since I wouldn't be convinced by the examples you have brought up in the past.
Including the precognitive dreams.
But of course - I have nothing to loose - you are hereby officially invited to visit my dreams!
Attachment 6888
How would I know, that you've been there?
Edit:
I've just been talking with my husband about it, and I said, that there would be a level of extraordinariness, which could convince me, that what might happen is not some sort of artefact. He found it silly of me to even think about it. Thinking is cheap, though - and why not while I wait and see.
In theory, I should say - it is still more probable, that somewhere deep in my mind, there is bit of a hope left - a latent wish, that there is something mythical about the world and curiosity and whatnot - and that this is, what could produce even such an exceptional experience.
I actually don't think, you would even claim to be able to cause an effect, which a total sceptic like me would accept, though.
Or better - which would seriously spark my curiosity first of all.
There could be other things of an equal power, but the actual example I brought to my husband was - have a lucid dream tonight, and a clearly autonomous DC shows up, identifies as you and we engage in some sort of information exchange.
That doesn't sound much - no password and lala - but a lot on the other hand - I'm not getting lucid lately, and DCs tend to be rather vague as well, if I do.
As said - maybe something non-lucid - but then it gets in muddy water.
And it had to be repeatable.
Thing is - everything somehow weak, would surely not lead me to throw out of the window large parts of what the scientific community and me consider our knowledge of nature, and my understanding of the world. So the motto goes: Extraordinary claims ask for extraordinary evidence.
I will always ask myself, if I could simply be subject to psychological effects first - and extensively - and maybe down to ask some experts.
But if I really were convinced - I would have found my purpose in life, actually - find out, what that was.
And if I came to see it as some sort of powerful and hopefully benign dream-madness - then I want to know, what that means.
Weell - I sort of see what my husband means as well - I will wait - but I have no hope, except it hides very, very deep.
Can't help that, it has to work without - I'm just being honest.
Ramble.. sorry.
My whole point should maybe have been - the boundaries of what I believe in, are not clearly defined and not clearly definable, even..
What I will do is report what will happen completely and honestly - as far as my not so great dream-recall enables me (good way to practise, too).
Would it be different - like easier - if I was lucid on my own devices? Would an encounter with you make me lucid?
Do I remember correctly, that what classically is meant by SD, is not exactly the way you do it?
It's sort of exciting - I can see the fun in it, too, actually!
I just really honestly think, people are wasting their time.
Not that I am happy with myself in that regard - maybe hence the motivation to care..
Steph,
I guess its put-up-or-shut-up time for me then! I'm very short of time to type, but here are a few thoughts without having time to word it all very well....
I don't think your scientific skepticism is a limiting factor here. I think you can keep your skepticism and still get a satisfactory result. You can't control the form that result will come in, and you have to be comfortable with that lack of control. But the answer will meet your standard of objective honesty, and you'll be able to agree that its unreasonable to write it off as a statistical fluke or other fallacy. I don't know whether you can get a "this is definitely real" result immediately, for me it started with "I don't know if this is real or not, but this is significant enough that I can't just dismiss it". I'm not concerned that you haven't found the anecdotes I've shared to be convincing. I haven't shared my most convincing examples with you because it would have violated the privacy of other people involved, and because you asked me to stop pushing the conversation in that direction before I got that far.
I won't be "in your dream". Some subconscious part of me/us is in you and vice versa, and this can produce effects in our dreams. The openness should be more at the level of identity, being willing to share something of who you are. If you try to keep it in your sensate imagination "at arms length" without it touching your essence, like how some people try to have romantic experiences without putting themselves at risk emotionally, it won't work as easily.
Aside from the openness, I think the strength of your curiosity is also important. But you've obviously got a fair amount of that or you wouldn't still be hanging around these shared dreaming threads after all these months. It might help to have some kind of other topic of philosophical interest to focus the experience, to help determine what the dream should be about. Something you want to know about metaphysics, or solving a problem in your interpersonal relationships, or dealing with life issues rooted in your childhood, or something else relatively 'deep' that you care about. This helps engage the part of our minds that can make the contact, its less likely to care about stupid stuff like passwords. Also, questions on lofty moral concerns helps keep us from forming inappropriate romantic attachments despite the intimacy, if that makes any sense.
One way this can play out is I'll get some specific details about you in my dreams that you haven't shared. It could go the other way too, but it wouldn't be as much of a demonstration for you that way.
I really have to go now, people are waiting for me at work.
Haven't read more than one book, surely Castaneda was one troubled individual but I woulden't go as far as to say that most of his stuff is nonsense. Deep occult mysticism is involved in and around Castaneda. And from what I understand in this vid: Robert Wagonner . Is that Castaneda is one of those figures who popularized Lucid Dreams and made LDing available for a wide audience such as this. Carlos Castaneda is responsible because he influenced these Lucid Giants such as Robert Wagonner and Stephen La Berge.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf0g1YZa8co
Steph, If it is mysticism and spirituality you want. You don't even need dream sharing for that. I suggest watching this video. It gets increasingly interesting. I recommend tuning in starting from 18:30 the first 15 minutes we have all heared already. His book must be a charm to read as well, i can imagine.
I can speak for Mudras here as well. They are a known phenomenon amongst some of my internet buddies. I have had an amazing dream which involved an outsider influencing my dreams and a level of control/manipulation of my own lucid dream that is beyond my comprehension. All in accordance to Mudras.. Which goes back to ancient spiritual roots. Which brings me to my final point. Which is that Lucid dreaming has been a spiritual practice for at least thousands of years. So look no further. Lucid dream progression - Dream Journals - Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views Night #1. Notice an outsider influence triggered my lucidity in a very engaging way.
As far as confirming actual experiences. I am certainly willing to try and dream share with you. If I must trust my own intuition and feelings, I have already established multiple instances of telepathic communication with you, or a part of you. Which I am uncertain about. To be completely honest. But nevertheless, engagement and interactions with YOU felt real and honest.
Those experiences are still not Dream sharing though. I will work on that, I hope I am welcome as well! Sounds like fun. ;)
All (most) feelings and dreams will be reported in my Dream Journal. :)
What are your motives?Quote:
Originally Posted by UdIe
By the way Steph, if you have a similar kind of openness in relation to me and DThoughts at the same time, then what you get in a dream won't necessarily be completely segregated, it will be sort of a hybrid of both of us. At least that's how it works for me. This can be confusing, like too many people talking at once, or it can actually help, if the third person adds some missing ingredient. I guess you have some sense of each of us though, who you think we are, so if you can sort of taste that in the experience you can get a flavor of how much of who you are interacting with.
You imagine, I presume, that your sense of who other people are is your own private model of them, that its not actually directly connected to them. The proof of that would be how much specific information gets through along with the vague impressions.
I tried this with DThoughts a few months ago by the way. I got an interesting dream, but there wasn't anything in it that I could objectively connect with him. He never got back to me, so I guess nothing of note happened on his end, or he got distracted somehow. I might worry that I don't still have the knack for this, that I can't do it any more, because I haven't had notably strong dreams of this type for about two years now. A lot of that is because I've lost interest, the experience isn't novel to me any more. I still have such experiences, but weaker, and unfocused. But I think what you do or don't experience has more to do with you and your own personal journey than with me, I'm just a willing participant, not really 'doing it'. And I have confidence that you will find what you are looking for, based on my past experience and on my sense of who you are.
And yet again, shadow is completely on point.
Dthoughts - lets see, what happens with shadowofwind first - if I really came to make an experience, which surprises me sufficiently - you are invited as well and I'll look out for you!
But don't forget - I'm not exactly searching for such experiences - not at all, actually, since I believe they are not possible.
It's just that I take up this challenge in a scientific spirit now, so to speak - how can I not, after such a confident invitation!
But if you happen to come across my "hyperdimensional cat" (she likes you said that!) - greet her from me and send her on over - I'd like to dream her as well! How about shadowofwind and you? You said, you had some maybe contacts, didn't you? With him as well?
Okay - sounds good!Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
How exactly do you mean this - that I should emotionally be set up in a way, that I let you in, so to speak, and don't hold you off with some sort of inner resistance - that I'm not afraid you could find things out?Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
Do you mean, I should put my mind to such a matter - meditate on a question, I might have - without telling you what it is?Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
To tune in to it? So it doesn't go right down to my intimate private core, or however to say that?
Okaay - now this would have to be something I really didn't share - and I've always been pretty open on here, too much at times, even.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
From the top of my head - I could imagine a whole bucket full of things I didn't directly share, but which a sensitive person could maybe follow and extract and extrapolate by pure worldly means - even if it came to you in a dream and not sifting through DV and looking for clues. But okay - surprise me.
Yupp - you presume exactly correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
Problem is - and I've been thinking about this before - with my one and a half thousand posts + DJ - if somebody with a bit of a professional eye goes over it - they will be able to paint a picture of me, which I never really consciously was aware, I had put out in that complexity.
I actually have a hard time to imagine a "secret" of mine, which is not implied somewhere ..
But enough guesswork - doors are open!
Attachment 6890
Steph,
We picked a difficult time to try to do this, I have insanely short deadlines at work, and my wife has been up most of the past two nights working. For me its kind of like raising a puppy or growing a plant though, once started it can't just be put off for a more convenient time.
In our initial discussions of shared dreaming, most of the thrust of your argument wasn't that you thought it was impossible, it was that you weren't convinced that it would be a good idea. That was an argument that I'm sympathetic to, and I guess you recall that I've supported that side of it. This is an issue now though, if you want to have that kind of experience, another desire has to reach an accommodation with or overpower your opposition. Whether or not you believe in it scientifically is a side issue I think, that's not a reason to be against something happening. There are things that I strongly doubt are possible that I still very much want. Maybe my lack of faith is a barrier, but I had that kind of skepticism when I started with the premonitions, so I know it doesn't always have to be an insurmountable barrier.
Maybe meditating or something helps, but I've never done anything like that. My approach, for better or worse, is to address the obstacles that I see, then what happens happens. If you're still against shared dreaming because its something you don't want to happen, then that's the most important thing to look at. And my approach would be to respect it and reach an agreement with it rather than trying to overpower it.
I find the 'extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence' argument to be unconvincing. As scientists, we describe things, forming mathematical/mental simplified caricatures of things that allow us to predict behavior to an extent. But those models aren't isomorphic with the things they describe, always they work well within some defined scope but fail if we extrapolate too far. We know this, and understand this. Nature is a kind of math I think, but its not the algebra we use. So always there is something outside of our scientific understanding. Psychic phenomena are not extraordinary in human experience, they're just hard to control well enough to do predefined experiments with. What would be extraordinary to me, is if our scientific models become so inflated in importance in our minds that we expect them to be able to account for everything, and strongly resist seeing things that they don't already accommodate. We need evidence, but I don't think it needs to be as hard as what you're implying. Its a conversation, a relationship. How does someone prove to you that they are a friend, and not just a sociopath trying to use you? Its almost impossible. Every kind thing they do you can plausibly explain as being some kind of setup for a later betrayal. How can they prove it? It doesn't make sense to demand that kind of proof from people, and I don't think it makes sense to treat our souls that way either. We need strong evidence, but the evidence shouldn't have to overpower that kind of prejudice.
However this works out, I'm going to stop challenging you to try shared dreaming, because I'm not going to try to tell you how open you have or haven't been. If we fail, that's a failure of my argument, and I'll have to make other arguments instead.
I need to work now. I had dreams last night, but if they involved you, they didn't involve you more than about 30%, and like all of my dreams in the last year or two they were weird and abstract. The people in them are not real people, the places are not real places, and do not even represent places or objects in a physical world. There were a couple of scenes that can at least be translated into something I can describe metaphorically, but if I share those I'll do it in a private message. I don't think my muse let me down, I think it tried to share a dream with you, and what happened was a fair reflection of our situation, if we can understand it. I think that to say anything sensible about my last night's dreams I need to describe a little more context of where I'm coming from, the desire that is driving my side of the interaction, since this is such a large part of what my dream-muse is responding to. I'll try to say a bit more at lunch.
First of all - please don't feel pressured now. I won't go ahead and say - see, told you - I would be patient, and as you said, I have nothing to loose.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
I do remember - but it is more of a kind of argumentation line of mine - that if it really was possible - the consequences would be horrifying.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
That does and did not mean I am actually afraid of it - it is more that I wonder, how people can be so blue-eyed in their wishful thinking to completely ignore the dark side, that would naturally be implied in such a way of thinking.
Same as next door - if I were a devout Christian, really taking it seriously - I had to stop LDing, because it is witchcraft and more.
This I tend to bring forth to make people think - not because I am actually worried.
Then was this Castaneda story, I told you and here - but that was in my youth, and I'm quite ashamed of being so stupidly superstitious, after having been much more reasonable at age 13. Whatever.
So no - I am not blocking anything.
Well - it's not exactly "we" - I do not need anything - but I might consider something coming my way.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
I don't believe it - and you are the one making a claim.
The evidence, I will consider, needed to persuade me - and really persuade me, because a lot of physics would have to be re-written to accommodate such phenomena.
Dark matter is also a really big not yet resolved issue of physics - and they dig themselves into a mountain to make sure, they don't by mistake detect cosmic radiation. Not sure, if you get my point, though.
I would like to keep this all out in the open - and out of areas, which wouldn't be suited for this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
It is meanwhile a public event, so to speak
But go ahead, whatever you have.
If you think, this is already the right moment of course.
And please take your time and don't let me keep you off work - I'm not working at the moment, obviously.
Steph,
Its not obvious to me that you're really open. I think that to some extent you're just pretending to be open so you can appear to win the argument. The shared dreaming doesn't work unless its something you really want, and you can't fake that. In any case, I can't prove or even know completely the extent to which that its a fair criticism. Let's try it one more night, and see if you have any interesting dreams.
Also consider if you experienced anything unusual two nights ago, before I posted my challenge. It usually comes the night prior to the external interaction for me. All I got this time though was the kind of weak impressions of other people that I've been getting for the past year or so, without the stronger experiences that seem like something's being pushed into my mind from some third facilitator. Although I haven't shared the fine details of the dreams with you, I don't think its highly likely that there's anything in there that would be meaningful.
Regarding Castaneda....I find his approach to self development to be brutal and lacking in love. I also have a problem with teachers who make shit up or who allow others to make shit up for them. Being a part of a long tradition is like that by default if you don't attempt to sort out what is and is not true from that tradition. I guess not everyone needs to play that role, but it's an important one that appears to me to be mostly abandoned in all religious and philosophical traditions. Science is superior for what it does well, but is often practiced like a religion.
Regarding physics: No physics would have to be rewritten to accommodate shared dreaming. We have physics theory for electromagnetics, but it's clear that shared dreaming does not work through light. We have physics for gravity, and other particle interactions, but again these deal with other conditions and effects. It's true that proving paranormal phenomena would be a big deal, because this would open up a new area for people to study, if they can. And of course that's what you meant, even while I make this other point. But proving paranormal phenomena doesn't overturn anything. It contradicts the vanity of people who think that the understanding of their chosen in-group defines reality, but it doesn't go against any actual science. If you study quantum theory, for example, and you consider it in this way, I think you find that a lot is assumed about how nature behaves that isn't actually in any the equations. Not everybody thinks about that though. Some people are really, really, good at manipulating symbols without examining or even recognizing any of the philosophical implications. Others do recognize philosophical implications, but don't pursue them because it's too hard. Existing physics is safe, in the same sense that Newtonian mechanics is still valid for what it was developed for. I don't think that new physics theory could be developed to accommodate paranormal phenomena any time soon even if people were working on it. Too little is known. I do agree though that puncturing the arrogant and somewhat stagnant bubble of present day science would be something notable. More people would recognize the folly of trying to complete theories by fine tuning them when they're radically incomplete. Knowing that this is what is going on is a big part of what drives me.
First.. Cats !! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ruNIIvXo8Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Second.. Yes, I do find a piece of resemblance to myself in the short dream-scenes that Shadowofwind has sent me. But quite abstract. There was little to no shared aspect of it, at all. Simply a shared interest. As far as I know.
And.. @ Shadowofwind, Sorry that I never got back at you. I wanted to wait with posting until i got myself together at the time. And i guess it simply took a long time before I got myself back together and the momentum kind of faded. Expect more of a coherent response from me the next time we interact as opposed to our last encounters. I finally got most of my shit together, I think. Even had a bitch ass kicking lucid dream tonight and loads of information from last night's dream that I want to share.. Simply do not have the time to update all my internet conversations. I do however, value the exchange you and I where having and I plan on still writing a response if you don't mind.
On another last note.. I intentionally did not dream share tonight.
About Carlos Casteneda and physics. (Realy need to go to school so i'll keep it short). I have experiences. Even in my lucid dream tonight that seems to indicate that Dream sharing and even dreaming itself is governed by the laws of physics on a deeply intimate way. It simply isn't so Obvious from the perspective of the dream. But when you disillusion yourself you can see particles as opposed to dream images. Both are different perspectives of the same kind of thing. I should go now.. Late for school! :)
Bye!
You DO NOT need to be proficient at LDing. I've never been that great at getting lucid myself. Shared dreaming seems to happen on it's own, and in my opinion the only reason it isn't noticed more often is because people only recall a small percentage of their dreams each night.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
If you want to force it to happen, you could use dream incubation or my specialty, dream control. Now the similarities and overlap between what I consider dream control and magic are uncanny, and I've found the theory behind ritual in particular to be most useful in building reliable dream control skills/tools/systems.
I've never said use magic and presto you get dream sharing. What I have consistently said is that dreams follow in the wake of your focused attention. That's all you need to know to force a shared dreaming scenario in order to play around and see for yourself. I'm sure it's only coincidence that the object most representative of magic is a magic wand, and that wands or pointers do one thing and one thing only, direct and focus attention.
It's not that it wasn't shared, I think most everything was public and even linked together somewhat, it's just that it wasn't organized, because of threads like this. Plus it doesn't help that our grandfathered DJs are unsearchable. What a pain in the ass that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzzkc
Nomad did a good job chronicling many of them
Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views - DreamAs1 - Dream Journals
http://www.dreamviews.com/dream-jour...ml#post1178987
As for methods, it's like anything else in dream control. Anything can work, but not everything will work for everyone. Putting on a pair of glasses may stabilize a dream for someone who wears glasses, but it won't do shit for the rest us it. It only works if you've put on glasses thousands of times, in effect ritual behavior which builds a system. I know I don't need to tell you that.
That said, there's no one miracle method to get'er done. You either get too specific and it doesn't fit for a large number of people who try to use it, or you give general advice which doesn't fit with their do X, get Y expectations. I still think the moon is an ideal place to meet, that project went exceptionally well.
Wasn't talking about Nomad and Co.
I've had shared dreams where both parties recall the encounter, yet the ones that left me the most convinced were the ones I didn't remember at all.
Like the one where Nomad, ManofShred and others trapped me in a chest where I found chocolate and beer. How could they have possibly have know I had spent the weekend gorging my self on expensive chocolate and imported beer playing video games that conditioned me to seek out treasure chests? That dream would have made perfect sense in my dream journal, and I would have known where every element came from. But in other people's dream journals? That's way too specific about me personally.
Or another one where Nomad and the gang saw me having 8 tentacle arms, each holding a globe with an individual scene inside. I have no recollection of that at all, and yet I had a notebook where I had sketched out exactly that. I had actually planned out that exact thing, had a drawing of the tentacle arms and everything. Only in my drawing, the focal points at the end of the arms weren't encased in glass globes. I was trying to design something to overwhelm and splinter my opponent's attention, I made it with the intention of using it, then I read about myself doing just that. It didn't end up working at all, but still way too specific to be coincidence. (I should have scanned and uploaded the sketch, but doing so after the fact wouldn't have convinced anyone.)
Even the one where I try to get ManOfShred with the old "your shoe lace is untied" by telling him he was bleeding. He didn't fall for it, but that sort of behavior in the dream character they describe is too accurate to be anyone but me, even if I don't recall the actual encounter.
My most memorable dreams last night were about Cthulhu, and about being a guest or observer at some kind of self-help/recovery/support group meeting. The Cthulhu dream relates to a thought I expressed earlier about constructively engaging the darker side of one's psyche.
Unless something changes in our feelings on the subject, I don't see a point in continuing to look towards telepathetically sharing with Steph. In the past it happens as soon as there's an opening, and if nothing interesting has happened yet, there's no opening. So I have to stop taunting people who dismiss shared dreaming without having tried it, especially since there's no way to compel interest. But I will still continue to suggest that shared dreaming skeptics might either relax their judgments a little bit or take more time to learn about about what they're talking about. There's a lot more anecdotal evidence available than what has been posted publicly, and personal experience that's possible, but you don't know about it if you're not interested in pursuing it.
A general thing up front - to say it is a problem of physics is only one aspect.
How should it be, that brains can communicate over the "ether" in principle, and evolution didn't make use of that supposed unknown property of physics since millions of years? Why are we not animals of telepathy then?
It simply makes no sense.
This specific sort of shared dreaming we seem to be talking in this thread, is so weak in it's supposed results - really - that can be anything from coincidence to people having a good or exceptional feel about other people, and what goes on in their minds, and research on the forum/good memory and and and..
People close together are known to say the same thing at the same time - there are tons of examples of synchronizing minds - this is the much easier and more probable explanation here.
What Nomad and Mylynes and floatinghead and others believed to be able to do, would be something really unusual in itself.
Hi The Cusp!
Nice you chime in - so you're having an eye on us still!
I am quite sure, I read about you doing SD of exactly the kind alluded to above as well - I might go look.
Wasn't it DreamWalkers and Nightstalkers once in the past?
I understand you well, you are correct - your techniques make sense, including the use of rituals, and I can honestly say, I gained some wisdom from you - and thank you for that!
But you keep implying the paranormal and supernatural. Do you even believe in these things yourself? Literally?
Well - I am definitively not open to do it in PMs and in too much of a grey-zone.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
And what you told me there up to now, seems to completely mirror the way you see me - as being torn between my believing side and my agnostic atheistic one. Symbolized as a conflict between two women. That is really not the way I feel.
Otherwise - I am open as in not opposing anything.
But I told you right from the start, that I do not believe in it - so how could I really want it?
That's impossible. And if it is a hindering factor - it's not going to work.
I will update my DJ later, and it's still, and was before your offer - the same quite boring and repeating things - same people, same places, same situations - with a lot of weird plants showing up lately, because I really want to do the plant-creation Task Of The Month. Last night I used a non-lucid shovel to take some home to my balcony ..Attachment 6895
Told you in my PM, why I do this experiment - and I thought, it was obvious.
I do it, not to be one of those people, who say something is not possible, but wouldn't even give it a try, if they wouldn't need to spend time or energy on it.
And you made the perfect offer - you said I neither had to believe in it, nor do something, and you would come up with a phenomenon, I would find extraordinary. If it worked from your side.
It's not that I want to win an argument with you about it - I can't possibly do that.
As per usual - I can't prove a negative, like it not working in general - I can only say, I'm still not convinced it's even an
interesting topic.
Aside from the people connected, so it does interest me to debate it, since I got to know and really like a lot of you "beyonders" - and you are my LDing co-pioneers and all.
Even if I don't always sound so, when the ranting-joy overtakes me.
But I think it a good idea to stop believing - a very good one. :wink:
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.
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.
I knew nothing about share dreaming on Saturday the first of March 2008 when I woke from that stunning shared dream that brought me online and into the dream community.
Then I "reveried" (daydreamed-waking dreamed) with Dr Robert Van De Castle, But I didn't know (back then) that he was such a "big wig" in the dream community. I didn't understand that till months later. He died on January 29 this year age 86. A great, great, light has gone out in the dream community.
Any way
He emailed, phoned and skyped with me in 2008/9. He caused an explosion of shared dreaming and powerful waking life synchronicities for me. I was brand new to the dream community and I only knew the likes of rvdc so I though that shared dreaming and "waking-dreams of visions" (sleep dreams) was the norm for everyone in the dream community.
I had no idea that I was interacting with the "crème de la crème" (best of the best) in the dream community. As a result I took for granted the amazing shared dreaming and stunning waking life synchronicities.
I totally agree with "the cusp".
I am a none lucid dreamer. A practically "unconscious" dream remote viewer. And from experience I know that no tricky Masons or Illuminati or Magician nor Hord of demons or any KNOWN god, causes the of-the-scale-synchronicities that happen after simple, honest, dreamers, gently, focus on a target to dream remote view or share dream.
If, like a 5 year old child, one just tries. "It" happens.
Soooooo hard to get folk to give it a simple try. Several times on several dream sites when I personally invited individuals to have-a-go at my dream games they replied:
"I wanna get better at "Lucid Dreaming" first! Then I'll havago.
But they never did.
My avatar is "the dawning" of the age of Aquarius. Look at the water flowing from the center towards you. Aquarius is a powerful naked man emptying a huge jar of water (energy) into this world.
Important lyrics in the song
golden *living-dreams* of visions º○º○º○º○º○º○•○º○º○º○º○º○•○•○•golden *living▪dreams* of visions º○º○º○º○º○º○•○•○º○•○º○•○º○•○º *Living dreams* are our "shark quality" dream synchronicities, º○º○•○•○º○•○•○•○º○•○•○•○•○•○•○•○•○º and the mind's true liberations º○º○•○•○•○º○•○•○º○•○•○•○•○º○•○and the mind's true liberations º○º○º○º○º○º○º○º○º○º○º○º○º○º○For thos who are reading this but don't know what I'm refering to when I write *shark quality* synchronicities. ... Read post number One of this link. Then check-out post:
***
http://www.dreamviews.com/beyond-dre...-reloaded.html
***
Oh
And here is thst song that says:
"Golden *living▪dreams* of visions" (synchronicities)
***
THE 5TH DIMENSION - AQUARIUS - LET THE SUNSHINE IN: THE 5TH DIMENSION - AQUARIUS - LET THE SUNSHINE IN - YouTube
***(4:49) 36, 814 views
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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! ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
Uups - I've been editing in my post, without looking, if there was an answer - that's stupid now.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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:Now - we pmed back and forth - and he could never, ever, ever have guessed something like that had happened without the explanation being dreamsharing.Spoiler for respective secret:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
@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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
But otherwise we are completely unable to make use of that medium - all we dreaming animals?
Come on - not bloody likely.
So what is the actual cause, that your effort didn't yield something in your view?Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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?
Thank you for the flowers - now - where did I leave the path of science in our endeavour here?Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
And where, please, where have you walked it?
I am interested - I know, that I said the topic wouldn't be, if it was not for you people.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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.
What I do not understand is, why it had to be personal and private and not for public consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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..:wink:
Please, shadowofwind - don't make me angry!!Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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?
Is all good! Peace be with us! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
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.
Who says I haven't been trying already? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
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.
****
That can be found in post number 14 of this thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by havago
***
http://www.dreamviews.com/beyond-dre...arget-2-a.html
***(13/247)
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?Quote:
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.
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!!
I am not cool with it and yes you did come on creepy in here already.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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??
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
Oh boy yes, it is wrong!!Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
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!
So - what came of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Exactly - and where are the whole lot of other things at work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
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?
So it didn't work with shadow?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
[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. :wink:
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.
Lest my omission be construed as an admission....I do not "consciously alienate open-minded sceptics by throwing [my] private stuff at them, and hoping they shut up, in order not to feel embarrassed, or embarrass [me]". I can't deny that it looks that way to you, but this is most emphatically not what I was doing.
[Edit: Another clarification, with hindsight....I'd never intended our interaction to be a scientific demonstration of shared dreaming, and never imagined you or anyone else would interpret it as one. It was a failed attempt to give you an opportunity to experience shared dreaming, hopefully with some content that is objectively verifiable by you if not by other people. This isn't meant to convince anyone else about anything, or even to convince you decisively, but just to give you a better clue about the subject actually is, as opposed to your straw-men-from-a-distance.]
Okay right - it was at several points a huge misunderstanding, it seems.
So - the world will not end from this "failure" - lets leave it be.
You threw some ignorant, speculative, slanderous shit at me in your last few posts. My apology was sincere. I made myself vulnerable to you, I had to for the experiment, and I tried many times over to make you understand that. I learned something, and we'll move on, but it's not all right.
Ok, temporarily locking this thread until personal matters handled privately.
