Thread: Able to control someone elses dreams.....

I have heard accounts of people sharing dreams, but unless you have a series knowledge of etheric matter, and energy manipulation, it is not possible to control someone elses dream.

it is possible that you had an etheric/telepathic connection with your friend during your lucid dream, thus effecting his or her dream.

What do you mean by tepathic and etheric.

Many people here seem to want this stuff to be very sciency and will say the dream is just your own neurons (so things like this would be impossable). Shared dreams are real. If you go inside far enough.... you come to a place where you can contact others. It is no longer inside your head. It is perhaps bad to try to influance others,,, but the possibility to reach out to others is real.

I'm reading a very interesting book right now entitled "Entangled Minds" by Dean Rabin. He describes a series of experiments that relate to this question. I'll keep it high level:

a person goes to sleep with a lab tech monitoring brainstate. When the sleeper enters REM a queue is given to a third person to open an envelope with one of eight pictures with the intention of viewing that picture and sending it to the dreamer.

When the person wakes they report their dream. Then, a collection of people review the eight pictures and independently rate them 1-8 (1 high correlation, 8 weakest) in terms how how close the picture is to the dream images. The results are avergaged out, etc ...

1-4 is considered a hit, 5-8 a miss.

If there was nothing to this notion of transferring an image, a large sample base would yield ~ 50% hits and 50% misses. This experiment was run in a controlled fashion, with different labs and so forth.

It turns out the hit probability tends to hover around 59%. That's pretty damn statistically signficant, and well outside any error bars that would apply to the data.

Doing some simple math and applying the fact that this happened in a number of concurrent events, labs, etc ... the likelihood of getting these results "accidently" if you will, was about 1 in 9 billion.

I think that's a facinating data point.