Thread: Shared-Dreaming Debate of 2015

Originally Posted by cooleymd

I was thinking of the technology as being what would become the conduit for shared dreaming to exist (in the future). But I suppose that would require the ability to place images in the mind as well, whereas to do as you suggest and just read two dreams to see they are the same would be easier with nearly existent tech. I wonder how much similarity you will want to claim it was a shared dream tho.

I would want at least location, symbols, shapes, characters and flow to be pretty similar (as obviously they would be if the computer connecting two dreamers was inserting the stuff from one mind to the other in real/near time)

Even if today you would have technology that would let you see what two people are dreaming of in high definition, you would not see exactly the same dream on both of them.

Why? Because information that one receives will inevitably pass through ones perception and interpretation. And if one of the participants is not an experienced lucid dreamer, I can only imagine what kind of twist his mind will add to such image. Then add lucidity into configuration, lets say one of them isn't lucid, he might completely interpret that information the way his subconscious mind wants and generate something completely weird out of that information.

What to do? There are two ways. First you should not be sleeping the moment you are receiving information, this way you have more 'waking thinking' with you, somewhere between waking and dreaming. The easiest way is your first nrem dream when you are falling asleep, but staying conscious.
Second, one person can setup a symbolical password. Lets say a 'Crocodile', second person should be dreaming of crocodile. You can increase the difficulty later on. Results will improve the more these two people 'share dreams' with each other.

And on top of Sivason's and Flowofmysoul's excellent points/examples there is yet another problem: as far as we know, there is no ANSI code, no HTML, for telepathic communication. In other words, Sivason's examples may even be too generous, because what is coming out of one person's mind may have nothing at all to do with what another mind might recognize as anything, much less an intended symbol or message.

For instance, say that Sivason wanted to send the image of a cat to me. Come lucid time, he takes a careful moment to form the perfect archetypical cat, backlights it nicely, and maybe even teaches the cat to say "Hey dummy, this is Sivason!" before sending the image into the aether. And say also that the image makes it to me (how it did that is another huge problem, BTW, maybe more on that later?). Unfortunately, because my perception is organized in a slightly different manner than Sivason's projections, not only do I not see a cat, but I see nothing at all, except for maybe some odd fuzz just over the horizon. This difference probably wouldn't need to be much, either, to throw the whole communication off. And, since the same rules probably apply to telepathy, I'm not sure, Flowofmysoul, if being awake or close to being awake would help much.

Just as two people who speak different languages can eventually learn to communicate, I imagine that a couple of shared dreamers would, over a substantial amount of time and many shared LD's, eventually be able to learn to understand their communications... but they still would not be able to understand anyone else's.

I suppose we could be genetically hard-wired with the code and just don't know/remember it, but that seems unlikely to me -- you'd think someone would have stumbled upon that code by now, given the amount of brain and DNA research that is being done.

Of course, this problem only exists on a material level that assumes the brain is doing the heavy lifting of consciousness. If we assume instead a mystical connection, perhaps that when we dream we are connecting to a cosmic consciousness that has already built the SD-ANSI code and embedded it in our souls, then we are back at Sivason's example above. Now, though that assumption seems conventional wisdom on the DV forums, when you look at it on paper it seems a bit hard to fathom.

Originally Posted by Sageous

And on top of Sivason's and Flowofmysoul's excellent points/examples there is yet another problem: as far as we know, there is no ANSI code, no HTML, for telepathic communication. In other words, Sivason's examples may even be too generous, because what is coming out of one person's mind may have nothing at all to do with what another mind might recognize as anything, much less an intended symbol or message.

For instance, say that Sivason wanted to send the image of a cat to me. Come lucid time, he takes a careful moment to form the perfect archetypical cat, backlights it nicely, and maybe even teaches the cat to say "Hey dummy, this is Sivason!" before sending the image into the aether. And say also that the image makes it to me (how it did that is another huge problem, BTW, maybe more on that later?). Unfortunately, because my perception is organized in a slightly different manner than Sivason's projections, not only do I not see a cat, but I see nothing at all, except for maybe some odd fuzz just over the horizon. This difference probably wouldn't need to be much, either, to throw the whole communication off. And, since the same rules probably apply to telepathy, I'm not sure, Flowofmysoul, if being awake or close to being awake would help much.

Just as two people who speak different languages can eventually learn to communicate, I imagine that a couple of shared dreamers would, over a substantial amount of time and many shared LD's, eventually be able to learn to understand their communications... but they still would not be able to understand anyone else's.

I suppose we could be genetically hard-wired with the code and just don't know/remember it, but that seems unlikely to me -- you'd think someone would have stumbled upon that code by now, given the amount of brain and DNA research that is being done.

Of course, this problem only exists on a material level that assumes the brain is doing the heavy lifting of consciousness. If we assume instead a mystical connection, perhaps that when we dream we are connecting to a cosmic consciousness that has already built the SD-ANSI code and embedded it in our souls, then we are back at Sivason's example above. Now, though that assumption seems conventional wisdom on the DV forums, when you look at it on paper it seems a bit hard to fathom.

I understand your thoughts, I had same thoughts some time ago. But it is much better then you think it is. First of all, transmitting a cat image isn't the best idea, you have to create a cat in your dream, that will work better. If you believe what you have made is a cat, then your partner will see a cat. If you will make something that does not look to you like a cat, then your partner will be confused too.

If you are looking at it as a code, there is a code that we all have and we are all able to communicate. You do not use language in your shared dreams, you can try, but that will make not much sense. All communications in shared dreams are more of a telepathy communications.

That's why in another similar topic recently, I said that one of my main goals is to learn, understand and develop this new way of communication. Sensory feelings in shared dreams can be way more intense then they are in waking life. It's not just a code, it is an amazing beautiful peace of art that does exist there. You just have to let your self go and don't focus on language, text, questions, answers.. Just go and experience it.

Think of it as next step in evolution.

^^ That is all good (and pretty nice, I must agree), but what then comprises telepathy communications? I think they would tend to work the same as shared dreaming, in terms of exchanging information or emotions. But let's assume for a moment that telepathy communications exist:

Since exchanged emotion, or sensory feelings, is arguably another form of communication that is probably just as "encoded" as language (if not more so, given that nature has had millions of years to establish the language of emotion), wouldn't the feelings you attempt to share be potentially just as misunderstood as images or language in the examples above? You might feel happiness or love during a shared dream, but how does your partner recognize that feeling, or even know it has been shared?

Are you assuming that the basic form of emotion (call it an energy template, maybe) has already been made uniform through evolution (or our collective unconscious, or a single universal dreaming mind, or whatever), so that their "transmission" can be received and understood in telepathic form? That we are innately "programmed," perhaps as a side-effect of those eons spent designing the physical language of emotion? That therefore emotions, or the "information of feelings," can naturally be transmitted and received between two people, or naturally understood in the midst of a SD?

If so, then that is an interesting assumption, and one that might fit into both the materialistic and mystical models noted above. And yes, understanding and developing that already existing natural exchange could well represent an evolutionary change -- one accelerated by LD'ing, of course!

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ That is all good (and pretty nice, I must agree), but what then comprises telepathy communications? I think they would tend to work the same as shared dreaming, in terms of exchanging information or emotions. But let's assume for a moment that telepathy communications exist:

Since exchanged emotion, or sensory feelings, is arguably another form of communication that is probably just as "encoded" as language (if not more so, given that nature has had millions of years to establish the language of emotion), wouldn't the feelings you attempt to share be potentially just as misunderstood as images or language in the examples above? You might feel happiness or love during a shared dream, but how does your partner recognize that feeling, or even know it has been shared?

Are you assuming that the basic form of emotion (call it an energy template, maybe) has already been made uniform through evolution (or our collective unconscious, or a single universal dreaming mind, or whatever), so that their "transmission" can be received and understood in telepathic form? That we are innately "programmed," perhaps as a side-effect of those eons spent designing the physical language of emotion? That therefore emotions, or the "information of feelings," can naturally be transmitted and received between two people, or naturally understood in the midst of a SD?

If so, then that is an interesting assumption, and one that might fit into both the materialistic and mystical models noted above. And yes, understanding and developing that already existing natural exchange could well represent an evolutionary change -- one accelerated by LD'ing, of course!

I know they are not misunderstood from my experience. I am not sure how this communication formed in first place, but I know it is working well.

Its not the same telepathy as you see in a movie. You are not talking to each other like 'hey 123 how are you, fine 321 and you?'. You look into each others eyes and you experience each other, as if you are looking into her soul. It is so much more complicated then simply a conversation.

Sometimes you see no body, but you feel the presence and still have some feelings of you two communicating. You both know what you are thinking about.

edit: One thing comes to mind, that idea in Buddhism that all is one and one is all. This is how it feels when you are with someone in a dream, you do not differentiate who is who, no ego, an ultimate reality I guess.

There seems to me to be an additional difficulty with concrete facts, besides them being hard to generate unambiguously from feelings. Some things are very clear to me while I'm dreaming, but I can't bring them out of the dream. I think there's a reason for that besides physiological limitations. Some facts belong only in particular contexts, and it is harmful to force them to exist elsewhere. I feel that and experience some of the harm of forcing it, even though I don't understand the reasons for it.

Our debate seems to have ground to a halt, or perhaps a level of equilibrium, so I'm hoping we can extend the debate from “proving” the existence of shared dreaming (I honestly never asked to debate proof of SD’s existence anyway) towards debating what shared dreaming might physically be -- what is its nature? So, for the sake of debate, let’s assume for now that SD exists*, and debate now how it functions in reality:

Since our brains do not produce enough energy to transmit an electromagnetic signal more than a few inches, much less thousands of miles, and because there seems no existent way to find your SD partner, it seems that SD is breaking some rules of physics. How does it work?

Post whatever theory you might have, no matter how crazy it sounds. And no, things like “Shared dreaming works because it does,” or “There are some things that are just beyond us, so we should accept them and not think about how they work,” because those are not theories and say nothing about the nature of shared dreaming. Also, anecdotal evidence does not equal an explanation of the nature of SD. Finally, calling SD “telepathy” is also not an explanation of how it works, because that only begs the question, “How then does telepathy work?”

To start things off, here is part of an OP from a thread I started on this subject a while back that summarizes my own hair-brained theory (the entire OP helps this bit make more sense, BTW):

Thought energy is created by individuals and tends to be attracted to other individuals' created thought energy, as well as itself. This dual attraction, when combined with the billions of actively sentient beings these days, has formed a “bubble” of coherent thought energy that encompasses our entire planet. So what we have is an energy sphere of connected thought pools (each pool representing an individual), and that energy is not under the jurisdiction of Newton’s laws.

When we dream, we enjoy a direct connection with our personal pool of thought energy, which in turn is connected to all the rest of the world’s pools through the surface tension of the thought energy bubble. From this position we have an opportunity to “transmit” to all the other individuals’ pools simultaneously, and also to listen to any recognizable transmissions that might be coming from other pools. If we can manage to recognize and understand these exchanged transmissions, then we are dream-sharing.

So how about your ideas on the mechanics of SD? And remember, this is not a debate about proof. It never was.

* For those who cannot assume, even for argument, that SD exists, that's fine; you can describe why the mechanics of SD just won't work in the physical world as we know it.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I think they would tend to work the same as shared dreaming, in terms of exchanging information or emotions. But let's assume for a moment that telepathy communications exist:

Since exchanged emotion, or sensory feelings, is arguably another form of communication that is probably just as "encoded" as language (if not more so, given that nature has had millions of years to establish the language of emotion), wouldn't the feelings you attempt to share be potentially just as misunderstood as images or language in the examples above? You might feel happiness or love during a shared dream, but how does your partner recognize that feeling, or even know it has been shared?

I think emotions are more likely a response to a dream then part of the dream, the dream is made of the sensory stuff sight, smell, touch, taste, sound, proprioception. I would say it is like this suppose in the real world we share a set of seats at the Superbowl and are watching / experiencing the same basic view, sounds etc. Imagine that I am a Patriots fan and you are a Seahawks fan our emotions will not be the same, they will be opposite because our emotions are internal and a response to the external. In a dream the sensory stuff is also internal but I would think that the emotional response would still be separate from it. So if we dreamed of seeing the game together our emotions would still be opposite.

Originally Posted by Sageous

How does it work?

So how about your ideas on the mechanics of SD?

I've been wondering about this for last two years, I have many different thoughts and ideas and many of them are mutually exclusive. When you will start building ideas on mechanics of SD, you will realize how much more there is. For a reason I don't think this is a coincidence, many people whom I know who are into shared dreaming and starting to think of a model, are getting interested in afterlife model instead of SD model.


I think it is too early to build a schema, we need more practice, we need more patterns.

^^ So what are some of those thoughts and ideas, if you'd like to share?

It may be too early to build a correct schema for the nature of SD, but I think it isn't too early to consider it, along with the potentials and possibilities that would accompany it...including, I imagine, a model for the afterlife, which might share SD's transcendental physics.

Here we must take one of at least two distinct paths.

1) We consider a problem of the physical world, and consider distance, amplitude of some energy, a physical formation in the structure of the brain capable of trasmitting some pattern of energy over distance, and such lines of thought.

2) We consider a universe based in a format ?above? the normal physical model. For instance a simple structure for discussion is the movie The Matrix. While I do not think a physical computer is the correct answer, the movie sets up a common ground for the discussion of a non-physical world. In Hindu thought the computer would be a highly advanced entity capable of "dreaming" the matrix we see and controlling factors such as physical law, just like the computer system in the movie.

In this second line of thought, we open many doors to what is otherwise unexplainable. We now would be faced with 'distance does not actually exist,' so distance can be removed from the complicating factors. And so on.

Physics tells us that there is the physical realm of solid particles and the quantum realm. We're all familiar with the physical, but if this is true, why should the quantum realm be cut of from us. I personally think the dream wold is the quantum realm, and according to those rules, shared dreaming is not that far fetched.

You guys can discuss this until you're blue in the face. But while you're busy discussing, what you're not doing is researching. To ignore all history and demand your proof happen since you've started paying attention is the height of arrogance. There is a metric crap ton of shared dream accounts out there. Instead of wasting your time discussing, perhaps you should take the time to track some of those down and study them objectively. Otherwise, all you can discuss is your preconceived notion.

^^ Actually, nobody is demanding proof at this point, and as OP I was never demanding it.

Every discussion does not require proof, The Cusp, and any discussion can be about things we cannot prove; people do that all the time. You may not have noticed, but I offered as a given a couple of posts ago that we accept that "crapload" of shared dream accounts and move on... I was hoping to step past the predictable exchanges that accompany the "proof" argument.

Back on topic: Can you explain how you feel the quantum realm applies to dreaming, since I was under the impression that that realm is restricted to the subatomic.

Seeing (the fact that you are an observer)

Contact (the fact that the observed is affected by the observer)

Attention (the fact of choiceless observing)

Perception (the fact everything is a mental construction)

Desire (the fact that of causes and conditions unique to You)

This is the basic tenet of all experience. I believe what creates the kind of experience you have is intention. Now, intentions only purpose is to be fulfilled thus the intention [must be true] to work. Either, the intention is there or its not. Be conscious of this point.

"Our-Dreaming-Mind" begins teaching (in a light, fun and friendly way) as soon as we participate in a (light, fun and friendly) dream game.

My new dream buddy has just begun and

"WhaMbang (!!!)"

"Our-Dreaming-Mind" immediately began teaching.

Only my Dream Buddy has pmed me requesting we pm from now on and I said ok.

But I'd prefer to keep most of "It" public so folk can see that it is truly Effortless . Because not us but "Our-Dreaming-Mind" that quickly joins in to show us how it is done.

Sigh

Here is what I mean:

***

http://www.dreamviews.com/lounge/156...m-buddies.html

***

Check out post #22

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ So what are some of those thoughts and ideas, if you'd like to share?

It may be too early to build a correct schema for the nature of SD, but I think it isn't too early to consider it, along with the potentials and possibilities that would accompany it...including, I imagine, a model for the afterlife, which might share SD's transcendental physics.

I don't want to post something big and is not ready, something that I am not sure of. Time goes and I am getting more experience and doing notes, trying to build this schema in my head.

I believe to understand how SD works, we have to look at more fundamental questions. What is the nature of our life, what happens when we die and how we are born.

There are questions that I am afraid to ask.. If you experience what I experienced and that is the reason why I think there is something after we die, then you will inevitably ask you self, why live longer? Why don't just let your self go next time you will be there. Now when you experienced and felt this incredible 'future', what is the reason to stay here? Don't get me wrong, I am not being suicidal here. But this is something that I had to answer on.



To support your topic, here is a link. Chinese Physicists Measure Speed of Quantum Entanglement - From Quarks to Quasars
If particles can interact on such big distance, 15,3km, then there should be an explanation why we can interact with each other.

Sivason

When did when did sageous dream of the Pink Elephants

Originally Posted by sivason

If you want proof than exchanging a pssword and all things reported exactly the same by two dreamers who have never met.

If you just want to believe: same time both occur, same theme on location, any events that happen, and weather. add in a common theme discussed that need not be exact.

Example:

Me and Sageous both report dreaming at the same time.

His dream: He calls out sivason and a giant furry spider appears and starts trying to drink off Sagous' cocktail. He asks"sivason?' and the spider becomes a human dc looking however sageous imagines me. He notices a parade is now going by is front porch,

and

an elephant is painted pink
.

Sivason complains that he has not drank nearly enough to see

pink elephants.


My dream: I am looking for something and shrink down to tiny to dart through a mouse hole. I see a guy drinking what looks like a masterful cocktail. I float up and stick my whole head in it and guzzle. I hear 'sivason?' I see the DC is different and called me by name, so I enlarge to full size. It is sageous as I picture him. Suddenly a handful of pot belly pigs and cats start marching by, Monkeys start riding them. I say :I am not so drunk as to warrant monkey riding anything.

That would be enough eveidence for the two who had the dream, but would be meaningless to any who want 'proof'

Sivason and Sageous

On the 31st of March on another site called "PsiDreams" I posted this

O-o C...

I woke and during my breakfast I grabbed that envelope off my CareBear and here is what was in it.

Envelope one was

♥♥♥

https://www.flickr.com/photos/debraj...n/photostream/

♥♥♥

And today's envelope (envelope 2) is

♡♡♡

https://www.flickr.com/photos/debrajane/16776295947/

♡♡♡

3 happy, tippsy, PINK Elephants strolling across the 1935 (green) Windsor Castle Hotel.

( when added to your "remember your future, elephant") maybe BobV Saying, "Don't forget to Remember Me"

BEE GEES LYRICS

Oh my heart won't believe that you have left me
I keep telling my self that it's true
I can get over anything you want my love
But I can't get myself over you

Don't forget to remember me
And the love that used to be
I still remember you
I love you
In my heart lies a memory to tell the stars above
Don't forget to remember me my love

On my wall lies a photograph of you girl
Though I try to forget you somehow
You're the mirror of my soul so take me out of my hole
Let me try to go on living right now

Don't forget to remember me
And the love that used to be
I still remember you
I love you
In my heart lies a memory to tell the stars above
Don't forget to remember me my love

♥♥♥

Bee Gees - Don't Forget To Remember Me (original): https://youtu.be/uBZCyuLuMEU

♥♥♥

I think that speculating about mechanisms is hopeless. It would only work if some mechanism which is already known in another context could be recognized as potentially applicable here. But I think we can rule that out, no known mechanisms are even close to fitting the symptoms. And new mechanisms don't become known by speculative discussion, without having the tools to take something apart and study it. It would be like trying to derive the physics of how a semiconductor works from scratch by talking about it at a coffee shop, without ever working in a lab. Or figuring out how our kidneys work by talking about it without already knowing a lot of biochemistry. You can't do it. Dream experiments are helpful and necessary, but this isn't what I mean by lab work either, because we're still not dealing directly with how it works. And after a while we exhaust the pool of potentially new anecdotal clues that we're capable of generating also. Personally I've mostly given up on that topic too. Not that other people have to give up, I'm just saying what I see. I still believe in progress, but think it has to come in other areas.

^^ Speculation here on this subject was meant to be fun, and perhaps stir our imaginations. I held no assumptions that we were going to unearth the mechanics of shared dreaming on this thread, and I certainly do not feel that must happen in order for a conversation to be had at all. In some venues (forum threads, for instance) discussions about, say, how kidneys work, could be a lot of fun, even if no truths are uncovered and everyone is wrong.

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ Speculation here on this subject was meant to be fun, .

Pixies. Pixies may have something to do with it. Maybe it does not matter if we say Fairies, Pixies, or Angels. However, perhaps some form of intermediary little spirit could act to take the images back and forth. Sort of like this. Pixie, tell Sageous I said, "I am not nearly drunk enough."

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ Speculation here on this subject was meant to be fun, and perhaps stir our imaginations. I held no assumptions that we were going to unearth the mechanics of shared dreaming on this thread, and I certainly do not feel that must happen in order for a conversation to be had at all. In some venues (forum threads, for instance) discussions about, say, how kidneys work, could be a lot of fun, even if no truths are uncovered and everyone is wrong.

Amen to that. In so many threads some people are after the proof and not willing to even entertain possibilities unless they are proven by science or whatever. What's wrong with just discussing the possibilities? Daydreaming of sorts. We are dreamers afterall, right?

Something like pixies is definitely involved in my case. No pixies, no dreams of that type.

One reason people drink at parties is so it doesn't seem as pointlessly boring when a bunch of people are talking without really communicating or learning anything. If an approach doesn't seem to be working, recognizing that can be one step towards finding an alternative. But it is not as if I have a satifying suggestion about what to do instead.