Thread: A proposal

This has been thought of before. MM has a "dreamscape" that is part of the monthly challenges.

A true skeptic would really just like to piss off believers. A tactical skeptic would make it so the believe could never prove their experience.

Originally Posted by starry eyes

Since this forum section has been changed to "Skeptic's Corner", I've seen more than one supposed-skeptic challenging the world to come visit them in their dreams, but then totally refusing to give any sort of identifying information about themselves, not even the timezones for when they would be asleep.

That sounds like it's either kind of cowardly, or else they aren't really skeptics and their challenges are just BS to be used for trolling. A true skeptic would want to facilitate their challenge in the hopes that the truth would disprove paranormal claims. But how to tell, for any given skeptic, whether it's dishonesty or an irrational fear of the world knowing the slightest thing about them?

Then it occurred to me earlier this week, while watching the Heavy Metal episode of South Park, that what is needed is to create as a group- A shared dreaming dreamscape. Someplace neutral where the minds of the dreamers can meet, if shared dreaming can be made to work at all.

I do not mean role playing or pretending about dreaming of such a place. I mean actual lucid dreamers really using their lucid dreaming skills to locate themselves into the shared dreamscape. And then taking note of any interactions with dream characters, who may or may not turn out to be other LDers.

To cut down on random factors, this shared dreamscape should not be a real place. And it should not be a place already in the popular imagination. But beyond that, I don't know what would work best.

Well,
If you're serious about this venture, let me offer an idea for a venue. Oh, and yes, i'm a Skeptic, not closed minded... that's not what skeptical means, just I require decent evidence before I make my mind up.

But if you want somewhere that would be easily accessed and visualised by dreamers, how about the Moon? In fact there is an area on the face of the moon called "lake of dreams", so that would be a perfect spot.

I've flown to the moon on many occasions in dreams.

For those who want to know which spot to "aim for"
This is where the lake of dreams (Lacus Somniorum) is...


I personally would be asleep during UK (GMT) night hours - normally between 12 till around 11ish (yeah i like to sleep in!).

I offer any people who wish to prove shared dreams to meet me there. I shall continue for the next couple of weeks to make it my dream destination.
I'll provide certain unknowable information to anyone who finds me there.
(I have decided this information in advance, and have written it down)
It's simple information, 3 seperate things in fact.
1 is very simple, another less so, and the final would be to me, complete evidence of your powers.
But none of the information would require you to do more than say, remember simple information.

I would be very happy for such an experiment to work. So i'm not messing around here. Please, someone, prove my skepticism on this matter wrong, it'd make me very happy.

As spaceexplorer said, being a skeptic doesn't mean you have to be close minded. It really just is about having a decent amount of evidence to be able to make it sound reasonable. It's not like I don't think shared dreaming would be awesome, or that I would love to see it proven For me though, there is no way near enough material to be able to establish anything reasonable that works with what we already know (in terms of science).

But if anything, I'd love to see what could happen with spaceexplorers proposal

This has been tried before with the lucid crossroads, and was an epic fail. The idea is solid, but the participation was weak. It's been around for a lot of years, but only a handful of people have ever dreamed of it. And there are no accounts of people who have ever even claimed to have met each other there.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

This has been tried before with the lucid crossroads, and was an epic fail. The idea is solid, but the participation was weak. It's been around for a lot of years, but only a handful of people have ever dreamed of it. And there are no accounts of people who have ever even claimed to have met each other there.

I just visited the lucid crossroads site, and I think I can see a possible problem. I've had many dreams in recurring dreamscapes. But from the artist's images shown, I've never had any dreams with any elements resembling such a place. It doesn't feel archetypal enough, maybe it's not a place that anyone would naturally dream of?

If that were the problem, perhaps a starting point would be to go through reports of recurring dreamscapes and make a note of any commonalities in the dreamscapes of different dreamers? To find an archetypal dreamscape.

Originally Posted by starry eyes

I just visited the lucid crossroads site, and I think I can see a possible problem. I've had many dreams in recurring dreamscapes. But from the artist's images shown, I've never had any dreams with any elements resembling such a place. It doesn't feel archetypal enough, maybe it's not a place that anyone would naturally dream of?

If that were the problem, perhaps a starting point would be to go through reports of recurring dreamscapes and make a note of any commonalities in the dreamscapes of different dreamers? To find an archetypal dreamscape.

You know, I think that's the problem with that place exactly. The didn't spend enough time reenforcing the original concept of the crossroads, which really was a perfect location in it's simplicity. Instead they kept expanding the place, always adding new things and areas, which would have undermined the stability of the whole location.

Of course as far as archetypes are concerned, there is a good chance that if I ever made it to the lucid crossroads I'd have to battle the devil in a fiddle contest.

I honestly see this working, and yet I honestly don't see this working.

Reasons.

1) I don't see this working in terms of manners and respect. Much like some threads I've seen around here, whenever things like this come up, it turns into nothing but a flame fest.

2) The only way I DO see this working is if participants have fun (gasp!) with it. That's the difference between doing it here, and how we do it over on MM. On MM, both skeptics and believers don't go into it looking to prove someone else wrong. We do it do see if it works, and we have fun with it. Personally, if I were to atempt it here, I'd want to feel like: "Will I see so-and-so tonight at the Dreamscape? I can't wait!" instead of: "HA! I can't wait to prove so-and-so wrong so I can shove it in his/her face!"

But this is just how I feel.

Originally Posted by Snowy Egypt

That's the difference between doing it here, and how we do it over on MM.

What is MM?

On MM, both skeptics and believers don't go into it looking to prove someone else wrong. We do it do see if it works, and we have fun with it. Personally, if I were to atempt it here, I'd want to feel like: "Will I see so-and-so tonight at the Dreamscape? I can't wait!" instead of: "HA! I can't wait to prove so-and-so wrong so I can shove it in his/her face!"

I can't see the bad of it, honestly. Even if somebody thinks "I can't wait to prove you wrong!!!!!", it's a strong enough motivation. Such a motivation means that he won't give up half-way, letting down somebody else. That would definitely kill any project.

Really, are people so sensitive that they will outright refuse to participate in anything if somebody wants to prove them wrong? If so then they're only driven by how comfortable the situation is, and they have no real interest towards the topic. Good riddance then, such people would lose interest soon anyway, or run away at the first sign of discomfort. All strictly my opinion, of course.




SpaceExplorer, I'd come if I could

Btw I think that maybe it's better to turn it another way around. Not a skeptical group making up what a believing group must memorize, but another way around. Otherwise I can see how it may seem offensive to some people, you kind of "smugly demand" them to memorize something.

Originally Posted by Arutad

What is MM?




I can't see the bad of it, honestly. Even if somebody thinks "I can't wait to prove you wrong!!!!!", it's a strong enough motivation. Such a motivation means that he won't give up half-way, letting down somebody else. That would definitely kill any project.

Really, are people so sensitive that they will outright refuse to participate in anything if somebody wants to prove them wrong? If so then they're only driven by how comfortable the situation is, and they have no real interest towards the topic. Good riddance then, such people would lose interest soon anyway, or run away at the first sign of discomfort. All strictly my opinion, of course.




SpaceExplorer, I'd come if I could

Btw I think that maybe it's better to turn it another way around. Not a skeptical group making up what a believing group must memorize, but another way around. Otherwise I can see how it may seem offensive to some people, you kind of "smugly demand" them to memorize something.

Perhaps I worded it badly,
All I meant was that I will share some information in a shared dream so that the shared dreamer can confirm it was me they were speaking to.
I am of course more than happy for them to tell me details about themselves too.

It's not a demand, it's just well, a communication of information.

The essence of a shared dream should really be the ability to communicate with the other dreamer I'm guessing?

But sorry if the wording didn't make that clear.

But, it's all fun, let's all try and meet at the lake of dreams.
Even if none of us get to have a shared dream, the moon is a fantastic place to hang out in a lucid dream... the views are quite something

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

But sorry if the wording didn't make that clear.

It was clear for me, but I'm not sure that everybody would react to it the same way. Seeing what kind of a post Snowy Egypt posted, I decided that some people would probably be against doing anything if they thought that you demanded anything from them.

Originally Posted by Arutad

It was clear for me, but I'm not sure that everybody would react to it the same way. Seeing what kind of a post Snowy Egypt posted, I decided that some people would probably be against doing anything if they thought that you demanded anything from them.

Ah right

By the way,
Who else wants to try and meet up on the Moon?

Even if not one of us even comes close to a shared dream, it'll be fascinating to see what kind of dreams it bring us all.

Sounds like a great idea. I wish I could LD consistently so I could participate.

I too am curious about the "MM" mentioned by Snowy Egypt.

For possible dreamscapes, I started with NDEs because NDE landscapes are pretty consistant between individuals of diverse beliefs. Thus they must at least be a generally occurring human archetype. From that, two common places are- a city with buildings made of glass/crystal- and a library.

Originally Posted by starry eyes

I too am curious about the "MM" mentioned by Snowy Egypt.

For possible dreamscapes, I started with NDEs because NDE landscapes are pretty consistant between individuals of diverse beliefs. Thus they must at least be a generally occurring human archetype. From that, two common places are- a city with buildings made of glass/crystal- and a library.

How did you "start with NDE's" ?

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

How did you "start with NDE's" ?

Because I am looking for archetypal dreamscapes, dreamscapes that the majority of dreamers will naturally tend to find themselves in consistantly across belief systems and cultures. A dreamscape being archetypal would make it much easier for larger numbers of dreamers to "be" there, and so increase the frequency of (theoretical) shared-dreaming events.

I think that was the problem with the Lucid Crossroads site, very few people even reported dreaming about it at all, probably because it was too far from archetypal.

The actual descriptions of landscapes in NDEs are too consistant across beliefs and cultures to be purely random or cultural mythology. It's true the NDEers add their own interpretations and religous icons to those landscapes, but the landscapes themselves come out remarkably similar.
You don't need to believe in a land of the dead. Even if there were no such place, the NDE landscape would still be a human archetype, an easy place for the mind to picture itself in.

Originally Posted by starry eyes

Because I am looking for archetypal dreamscapes, dreamscapes that the majority of dreamers will naturally tend to find themselves in consistantly across belief systems and cultures. A dreamscape being archetypal would make it much easier for larger numbers of dreamers to "be" there, and so increase the frequency of (theoretical) shared-dreaming events.

I think that was the problem with the Lucid Crossroads site, very few people even reported dreaming about it at all, probably because it was too far from archetypal.

The actual descriptions of landscapes in NDEs are too consistant across beliefs and cultures to be purely random or cultural mythology. It's true the NDEers add their own interpretations and religous icons to those landscapes, but the landscapes themselves come out remarkably similar.
You don't need to believe in a land of the dead. Even if there were no such place, the NDE landscape would still be a human archetype, an easy place for the mind to picture itself in.

Yes, but I thought that when you phrased "I started with NDEs because.." that yourself have had NDE's

I apologize. I'm use to using the initials.

MM is Mortal Mist. It's a year old resurrected Lucid Dreaming site owned by an ex-Admin of DV. It's core member base are ex-DV members who were fed up with how DV was run at the time and wanted a calm place to talk LDs, experiment, and the like.

Originally Posted by Arutad

I can't see the bad of it, honestly. Even if somebody thinks "I can't wait to prove you wrong!!!!!", it's a strong enough motivation. Such a motivation means that he won't give up half-way, letting down somebody else. That would definitely kill any project.

Really, are people so sensitive that they will outright refuse to participate in anything if somebody wants to prove them wrong? If so then they're only driven by how comfortable the situation is, and they have no real interest towards the topic. Good riddance then, such people would lose interest soon anyway, or run away at the first sign of discomfort. All strictly my opinion, of course.

Whether you like it or not, that is how some members are. Such attitudes, like "competition" so to speak, are a turn-off. They might really want to do this, and proving someone wrong might be the farthest thing in their mind. If you're going to have a "Good riddance" attitude about these kinds of participants, be my guest. That attitude, to me, is what kills things like this.

Space, I apologize if you think any of my ranting is directed at you or based upon what you've posted. Personally I'd love to do this (I honestly can't wait for everything to be finalized), but I had to get my opinions out first and I'm glad I did so.

Originally Posted by starry eyes

Because I am looking for archetypal dreamscapes, dreamscapes that the majority of dreamers will naturally tend to find themselves in consistantly across belief systems and cultures. A dreamscape being archetypal would make it much easier for larger numbers of dreamers to "be" there, and so increase the frequency of (theoretical) shared-dreaming events.

Why is the idea of dreamscape so important? Is dreaming of a certain place supposed to automatically make you meet everybody who's dreaming of it?

Originally Posted by Snowy Egypt

Whether you like it or not, that is how some members are. Such attitudes, like "competition" so to speak, are a turn-off. They might really want to do this, and proving someone wrong might be the farthest thing in their mind. If you're going to have a "Good riddance" attitude about these kinds of participants, be my guest. That attitude, to me, is what kills things like this.

Hm I guess I wrote it in a muddled way. I'm not against competition actually, it's better than no interest at all, but sure it can be a turn off and tiring. But if somebody wants to prove you wrong like hell, you can be sure that he's at least putting a lot of effort in doing it, instead of slacking off.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Ah right

By the way,
Who else wants to try and meet up on the Moon?

Even if not one of us even comes close to a shared dream, it'll be fascinating to see what kind of dreams it bring us all.

I will give it a shot. Even if I do not have a shared dream i't will be fascinating like you said. I will have to set my alarm then.

Sounds like a neat idea. I really hope shared dreaming is real, so i would like to try.

Originally Posted by Arutad

Why is the idea of dreamscape so important? Is dreaming of a certain place supposed to automatically make you meet everybody who's dreaming of it?

(If) shared dreaming is real, in this situation the skeptics demanding the proof are unwilling to divulge enough information (any information) about themselves with which to uniquely identify their dreaming minds among 6 billion other dreamers. So even if shared dreaming is real the idea of a direct dream link to them is definitely out.

Two dreamers going to the same dreamscape may not automatically allow them to meet, but under the circumstance it's the only possible way for a shared link to be made. It raises the chances beyond that of two random dreamers not in the same dreamscape.

What would be so bad about LDing a NDEscape? It's just a dream, isn't it?

Originally Posted by starry eyes

(If) shared dreaming is real, in this situation the skeptics demanding the proof are unwilling to divulge enough information (any information) about themselves with which to uniquely identify their dreaming minds among 6 billion other dreamers. So even if shared dreaming is real the idea of a direct dream link to them is definitely out.

Two dreamers going to the same dreamscape may not automatically allow them to meet, but under the circumstance it's the only possible way for a shared link to be made. It raises the chances beyond that of two random dreamers not in the same dreamscape.

To be honest I can't see how it raises the chances. Both people dream of some landscape, but each in a separate dream. Each one creates his own version of the dreamscape, and these two versions aren't connected. So they're going to each stand in their own version, without meeting each other.

It would make sense to dream of a real place imho, at least then you could hope that each of you can somehow connect to it.

And what's so bad about a forum nick btw? Coupled with an avatar, it's something pretty unique to fish out of 5 billion dreaming minds. Provided that your wish for identity is only about uniqueness and there's no importance to what exactly is used for identifying.

Originally Posted by Arutad

To be honest I can't see how it raises the chances. Both people dream of some landscape, but each in a separate dream. Each one creates his own version of the dreamscape, and these two versions aren't connected. So they're going to each stand in their own version, without meeting each other.

Only if there isn't shared dreaming going on. If there is shared dreaming, then the two versions might merge. In any case, both dreamers being in the same dreamscape doesn't lower the chances. And this experiment is designed to detect incidents of shared dreaming, so for the sake of scientific neutrality it required to try to raise the chances.

You wouldn't run a scientific experiment to prove that two people can look at each other through telescopes, only to say that both telescopes can be pointed in any old direction with the lens caps left on. That would be bogus science.

That's why they're building the LHC, to raise the chances of detecting the Higgs Boson. Not just saying it's impossible without trying really hard.

It would make sense to dream of a real place imho, at least then you could hope that each of you can somehow connect to it.

The 'scapes experienced during NDE are as close to a universal archetype as possible. The people having the NDEs generally aren't even trying to have one, or direct it in any way, and they still describe similar sights.

The problem with using real places is that then you've added astral projection to the skills required for having a shared dream.

And what's so bad about a forum nick btw? Coupled with an avatar, it's something pretty unique to fish out of 5 billion dreaming minds. Provided that your wish for identity is only about uniqueness and there's no importance to what exactly is used for identifying.

I couldn't right now send you an email just because I know your nick, or call you on the telephone, or recognize you if I saw you on the street. And all those things are clearly possible if you have sufficient information. If that real world task is impossible, why should any shared dreaming be easier? Do you spend all your time in dreams holding a big sign saying "I'm Arutad from dreamviews"?

Starry eyes, I'm not holding a big sign with my name in dreams either, so I really don't see how it's different if you know my name. It's not a unique name to fish out of 5 billions of people, many others are called by the same name. The nick is better in this respect, even though google shows it's not unique there can't be so many people who associate themselves with it as the quantity of those who associate themselves with the same name. If you add an avatar, you make sure that other such nicks get eliminated, so I think it becomes a fully unique link to somebody. Why not?