Thread: Breaking into someone's dream?

Originally Posted by Royalpeach

In my opinion, God is not a figure but a force, such as gravity or friction. Really a law that shapes our lives around us. No one knows who created God.

How about we do away with creators, because they just require further creators ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by Royalpeach

But, I challenge you to answer the same questions for your theory.

Ok challenge accepted...

Originally Posted by Royalpeach

Who created the first life?

Nobody.
sorry for once again refering to a youtube video, but it really does save a lot of typing, and seriously, if you are genuinely interested in the answer then i really recommend taking the time to watch this...

Originally Posted by Royalpeach

If humans evolved from some bacterium, what did that bacterium evolve from?

This is answered in the above video. too

Originally Posted by Royalpeach

No one really has the answers to where life came from.

Fortunatly, that's not true.
And part of the beauty and wonder of science is that the answers to these questions are becoming clearer and more complete with every passing day.

Originally Posted by Royalpeach

EDIT: How did we go from dreaming to theories of life?

I think it happened because the origial concept of breaking into someones dream, was not based in fact, and the more you pulled that thread the more unlikely explanations of reality had to be made.

Still, watch that video, it's really a very good explanation.

Stay on topic guys, this thread is about concepts of shared dreaming, not religion or philosophy.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Nope. Human consciousness is an electromagnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro..._consciousness
The brain is a part of the body. The body generates an electromagnetic field, which is the sum of the EM-fields of the cells in the body. You also think and remember with your little toe, as the EM-field is responsible for consciousness, not the brain alone. This is evidenced by transplant memories.
http://www.med.unc.edu/wellness/main...r%20memory.htm


So you see, most people reason that consciousness is in a fixed state, something solid, therefore, it can't influence anyhting else as it is stuck into the brain. But this is not true, electromagnetic energy behaves more like a fluid and is obviously not stopped by anything. Just like the EM-field of the earth moves the needle of the compass, so does the EM-field of your body move the functions in your cells. Or even in the cells of other people. Scientists have already proven this claim by inventing devices which influence the EM-field and by doing that change the perception of the world.. hallucinations and OBE's occur.

sup ChaybaChayba, you are are absolutely right. There is a simple experiment with a metal hangar you can try that will prove that feelings are magnetic. But trying to explain any of this too SpaceExplorer, Moonshine, or Xei is like trying to teach a rock. They'll deny "any" evidence that challenges their belief system. It's a defense mechanism. Being skeptical about anything is just a defense mechanism to convince themselves that something isn't really happening or true, that would force them and change their view of the world.

You see, most people like to have a grasp on their world. They have a belief system that is burned into their subconscious. Most peoples minds just aren't mature to handle anything the government doesn't spoonfeed them. This is why we can't handle disclosure visitation ( if they are real ), or even if reincarnation was proved. A lot of people would panic. People fear the unknown, which is only natural.

I used to be atheist too, meaning I thought after you died..that's it, your worm food, and I had no problem believing that. But I've also come across too many stories and too much evidence to consider that as the sole truth.

Originally Posted by no-Name

Stay on topic guys, this thread is about concepts of shared dreaming, not religion or philosophy.

Read whole the conversation, and you'll see that this is still very much on topic.
You can't just jump in and see that the topic seems to have strayed, and assume that it's gone off topic.
As with all things in life, if you wish to get to the bottom of a subject you need to delve deeper.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

sup ChaybaChayba, you are are absolutely right. There is a simple experiment with a metal hangar you can try that will prove that feelings are magnetic. But trying to explain any of this too SpaceExplorer, Moonshine, or Xei is like trying to teach a rock. They'll deny "any" evidence that challenges their belief system. It's a defense mechanism. Being skeptical about anything is just a defense mechanism to convince themselves that something isn't really happening or true, that would force them and change their view of the world.

You see, most people like to have a grasp on their world. They have a belief system that is burned into their subconscious. Most peoples minds just aren't mature to handle anything the government doesn't spoonfeed them. This is why we can't handle disclosure visitation ( if they are real ), or even if reincarnation was proved. A lot of people would panic. People fear the unknown, which is only natural.

I used to be atheist too, meaning I thought after you died..that's it, your worm food, and I had no problem believing that. But I've also come across too many stories and too much evidence to consider that as the sole truth.

I'd discuss with you, but i really don't have the time or inclination.

Though I do see this as a likely possibility, perhaps more likely than God, some aspects don't make sense. How did the RNA "know" how to form together in different ways to form life? Moreover, how many anomalies would it take to form into a human lifeform? I'd assume it would take more than about 4 billion years for hydrogen cyanide and ammonia to form into humans. I'm not personally a devoutly religious man, but the theory of a Great Creator makes more sense to me, regardless of the speculation science has come up with. But, for the sake of staying on topic, I'll stop my arguments here.

As for that closed-minded fool HardWired, watch your tongue. SE is much more intelligent than you will apparently ever be, regardless of what he believes. Aren't you using the same sorry excuse of a "defense mechanism" as you accuse them of using yourself by simply denying any evidence they have to show you? Take into consideration what SE has to say, it actually makes sense to anyone who has a more complex mindset than an eighth grader.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Read whole the conversation, and you'll see that this is still very much on topic.
You can't just jump in and see that the topic seems to have strayed, and assume that it's gone off topic.
As with all things in life, if you wish to get to the bottom of a subject you need to delve deeper.

If a thread in R/S or ED moves(as is being done in this topic) from the topic of 'the morality of sex' to 'which sex position is the best', then I would move it out of ED or R/S.

Respond by PM if you must, and just to reiterate, please stay on topic.

Originally Posted by Royalpeach

SE is much more intelligent than you will apparently ever be, regardless of what he believes.

Yes he does seem smart, I'll admit. If I insulted anyone I apologize, but him being smarter than me still isn't the point. Your still not getting it, it's not about looking at things from an objective point of view.

I'll get off of this subject now.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Well, what you are doing is a very common mistake of people with beliefs.
It is up to the person who makes an extraordinary claim to provide evidence, Not the other way around.

This is one of the errors with science. It assumes there is a way to determine which claim is "extraordinary". The way it's done now is "first come, first served". The correct statement should be: "claims require evidence". Every theory should stand up to the same scrutiny, rather than give preferential treatment to whichever one was thought up first. Science behaves too stubbornly as a result of this. Take as an example the age of the Sphinx. Despite physical evidence that indicates it's quite old, current beliefs are that no one was around then to build it, so this evidence is ignored. Rather, the physical evidence should tell us indeed, someone was there.

I should also point out that this thread began with the assumption that shared dreaming with permission is possible. It's the incumbent here. So, playing by your rules, you're burdened to find extraordinary evidence for why it's not true.

Originally Posted by Royalpeach

Though I do see this as a likely possibility, perhaps more likely than God, some aspects don't make sense. How did the RNA "know" how to form together in different ways to form life? Moreover, how many anomalies would it take to form into a human lifeform? I'd assume it would take more than about 4 billion years for hydrogen cyanide and ammonia to form into humans. I'm not personally a devoutly religious man, but the theory of a Great Creator makes more sense to me, regardless of the speculation science has come up with. But, for the sake of staying on topic, I'll stop my arguments here.

As for that closed-minded fool HardWired, watch your tongue. SE is much more intelligent than you will apparently ever be, regardless of what he believes. Aren't you using the same sorry excuse of a "defense mechanism" as you accuse them of using yourself by simply denying any evidence they have to show you? Take into consideration what SE has to say, it actually makes sense to anyone who has a more complex mindset than an eighth grader.

Thanks RP,
You've made me remember that two intelligent people can debate and hold different opinions, without resulting to mud throwing or mindless arguments (which has been suprisingly hard to come by in Beyond Dreaming lol).
It's been a pleasure talking to you.

I agree with the issue with how does RNA "know".
Although i think, it's probably a bit like saying how does an apple "know" to fall to the ground, when it's just following the rules of gravity.

Of course there is the question, where did all these rules come from in the first place?

Which is one of the great mysterys of the universe, that really defines the word mystery.

Of course, saying a "god" created them, dosn't really answer anything, because then who created god and the rules that govern him (even if god is simply the rules of the universe)

That old infinite regress issue is a real problem with this stuff!!

It seems to me that you hold a scientific-pantheist view of the world, which is basically how i see myself (scientific-pantheist/atheist (same thing really))

Part of the beauty of all this stuff, is that it all rests on such a mystery.

ps. for those who do insist on childish arguments, bending semantics to argue silly points, and mud throwing... I don't have the time or inclination to talk to you, when i can be having intelligent debates with people like RoyalPeach who are able to accept that a difference of opinions, is not a ticket to character assasinate or result to being rude. The only way any of us can ever learn, is to debate with those who share different opinions and share information and educate each other. It's the only way to grow IMHO.
Two opinions being forced to compete against each other, requires us to really research what we believe to be true, and of course, as with the laws of nature, the fittest and best adapted opinion will survive. And if no clear answers can be found, if there is no "final answer", then both partys can learn and grow together.

One that we will probably never fully understand, but it'll be a hell of a lot of fun trying to. Nice talking to you, too.

Originally Posted by mentalenforcer

This is one of the errors with science. It assumes there is a way to determine which claim is "extraordinary". The way it's done now is "first come, first served". The correct statement should be: "claims require evidence". Every theory should stand up to the same scrutiny, rather than give preferential treatment to whichever one was thought up first. Science behaves too stubbornly as a result of this. Take as an example the age of the Sphinx. Despite physical evidence that indicates it's quite old, current beliefs are that no one was around then to build it, so this evidence is ignored. Rather, the physical evidence should tell us indeed, someone was there.

I should also point out that this thread began with the assumption that shared dreaming with permission is possible. It's the incumbent here. So, playing by your rules, you're burdened to find extraordinary evidence for why it's not true.

I was biting my tounge to not respond to this, but couldn't leave it haha
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point.

By using the term extraordinary, what is being said is:
If your claim stands outside of the current established knowledge, and accumilated evidence by quite some degree, then you will require enough evidence to fill the gap between the established knowledge and your claim.
Clearly the more outlandish the claim, the wider that gap will be.
Also if your claim either undermines or contradicts established and proven facts, then it would be wise to establish how your claim will compensate this contradiction of established facts, with an equally if not more sound explanation for why these things occur.

It has nothing to do with "first come first served"
It is about whether your claim is extraordinary relative to currently established facts about the universe.
You could semantically argue that this is "first come first served", but only in the same way that claiming that you need to reinvent the wheel each time you build a car makes sense.

For example, if you claim you can live without breathing. Not only will you first have to provide evidence for your claim (which is fair enough, because if you claim you can do something, then just do it, it's not asking much.)
But if your claim cannot be immediatly demonstrated (say you only have this ability on a full moon for example) then until you are able to conclusively prove your claim through demonstration and evidence, then it would be wise to be able to establish at the very least a plausable theory as to why you are able to break these basic biological laws.


as for:

I should also point out that this thread began with the assumption that shared dreaming with permission is possible. It's the incumbent here. So, playing by your rules, you're burdened to find extraordinary evidence for why it's not true.

Um, not sure how you came to this conclusion, seems like a bit of semantic juggling.

It has nothing to do with who started a thread, or who posed which theory first. But it has everything to do with what the already established and proven facts are and where your claim fits into that picture.

If your claim does not fit with established knowledge, then regardless of if your claim is of some psychic ability, or a new quantum theory, or a new theory of evolution, you are going to have to at the very least, be sure that your theory/claim can stand up to equal scutiny and testing as the currently established scientific model. At best, your claim should not only equal current thinking and knowledge, but improve upon it, proving that your claim is a better model of reality than the previously established model.


It's getting late, so i may have not worded all this as clearly as I would like, but hopefully i've made my point.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Well, i've had two seemingly shared dreams in my life.

I would like to read these two dreams.

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

I would like to read these two dreams.

I'll see if i can track them down in my old journals and post them up

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

I'll see if i can track them down in my old journals and post them up

That would be awesome. And you have to do more animation. Just kidding.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

I think you may want to do a bit more study into natural selection, as it's clear that you misunderstand some of the most vital aspects of it. But so did I for years, so it's completely understandable.

There are very clear cut answers to your questions, but you've made too many points that i can't answer them all without writing an essay that i'm sure no one will actually read.

I'd suggest you read The Blind Watchmaker:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Watchm...4241445&sr=8-1

although this video is quite good at explaining the basics too:



But, let's for a moment assume the creationist argument is the correct one (which of course i don't believe, but for the sake of argument) then...

I'll ask you a couple of questions if you don't mind.

Is God more complicated than the Universe, or even is God more complicated than a human?

Who created God?

If a human is complicated enough to require a creator, then why wouldn't God also require a creator?

If God dosn't require a creator, then why then should something less complicated than God require a creator?

Do you not think that the arguments you raise that require a creator, are just as equally relevant to the creator itself?
and dosn't that create an infinite regress?

You seem to be acting like you're profound, and that you have the fundamentals to life all figured out; Heck, you even go the distance to post videos about natural selection... No matter how intelligent you make yourself out to be, your side doesn't add up, and I'll explain.

First, before all, you're correlating your reasoning with man's logic. But, you do realize that EVEN MANKIND doesn't consider our "logic" system, that which is the foundation of all reasoning, 100% true. It's just perception, my friend. Perception. Further more, natural selection doesn't explain how our thoughts became so, or what made the micro-functions in cells, or the functions of the micro-functions in cells, or even what brought cells into existence. And if you can figure out whatever did, tell what brought that into existence? And if, by some chance, you figure that out, what created that which created whatever brought cells into existence.. The corollary is, 'science' can't provide a reason for how we were created. Yes, they may provide how we evolved, but then, what mechanism allows us to evolve? And when you find that out, if you do, tell me what brought that into existence? I can go on and on, deeper and deeper, but before I reach the end, a scientific explanation will've died out long before. Natural Selection says our existence was an inevitability, but how so if we never existed? Would we continue to believe that. You're reasoning is restricted within the confines or man's reality. You believe what you were taught to believe. I guarantee if you were raised to believe the sky was 'painted' blue, and was given a explanation for how it was, you'd be convicted to believe it was, because it's the logic you've grown up believing. The same with mankind's logic. They told how this came to be, and how this can't be right because of that, but the truth is it's ALL perception. I believe in God, and it's not because I was raised to believe in him, it's because everything around us says he's real. Science is a form of perception, not truth. You say you weren't given a choice because reality hadn't left you one, or along those lines-------------honestly, that's closed-minded. You can fool everyone with your sophisticated talk, and provide us with more of that logic you breathe in, but you're only grasping the art of speculation. And it's quite sad that you believe you can justify perception. The very existence of 'science' proves God's existence. Meditate on that alittle bit...

I could go on, but it's way late, and I've class tomorrow. I chat with people like you all the time, I take it seriously. But know this, I'm not here to converse or debate with you, you can do that with someone else, I was just put off and somewhat annoyed by your explanation of that which warrants a response you couldn't possibly provide.

Originally Posted by Lucid XVIII

You seem to be acting like you're profound, and that you have the fundamentals to life all figured out; Heck, you even go the distance to post videos about natural selection... No matter how intelligent you make yourself out to be, your side doesn't add up, and I'll explain.

First, before all, you're correlating your reasoning with man's logic. But, you do realize that EVEN MANKIND doesn't consider our "logic" system, that which is the foundation of all reasoning, 100% true. It's just perception, my friend. Perception. Further more, natural selection doesn't explain how our thoughts became so, or what made the micro-functions in cells, or the functions of the micro-functions in cells, or even what brought cells into existence. And if you can figure out whatever did, tell what brought that into existence? And if, by some chance, you figure that out, what created that which created whatever brought cells into existence.. The corollary is, 'science' can't provide a reason for how we were created. Yes, they may provide how we evolved, but then, what mechanism allows us to evolve? And when you find that out, if you do, tell me what brought that into existence? I can go on and on, deeper and deeper, but before I reach the end, a scientific explanation will've died out long before. Natural Selection says our existence was an inevitability, but how so if we never existed? Would we continue to believe that. You're reasoning is restricted within the confines or man's reality. You believe what you were taught to believe. I guarantee if you were raised to believe the sky was 'painted' blue, and was given a explanation for how it was, you'd be convicted to believe it was, because it's the logic you've grown up believing. The same with mankind's logic. They told how this came to be, and how this can't be right because of that, but the truth is it's ALL perception. I believe in God, and it's not because I was raised to believe in him, it's because everything around us says he's real. Science is a form of perception, not truth. You say you weren't given a choice because reality hadn't left you one, or along those lines-------------honestly, that's closed-minded. You can fool everyone with your sophisticated talk, and provide us with more of that logic you breathe in, but you're only grasping the art of speculation. And it's quite sad that you believe you can justify perception. The very existence of 'science' proves God's existence. Meditate on that alittle bit...

I could go on, but it's way late, and I've class tomorrow. I chat with people like you all the time, I take it seriously. But know this, I'm not here to converse or debate with you, you can do that with someone else, I was just put off and somewhat annoyed by your explanation of that which warrants a response you couldn't possibly provide.

Very passionate response.
Unfortunatly feeling passionatly about something reflects absolutely zero on the reality of the belief.
If you want to have a passionate debate,
how about we talk about all the evil and filth your God allows in this universe.
Child abuse, torture, disease, famine, war, rape, murder, death, disability, mental illness, natural disasters, extinction. to name only a few.
All utterly abhorrent and vile, and quite utterly unnecassary if there were a caring loving benevolant deity in control of things.

I don't like to bring these things into arguments, when god can so easily be discounted by science. But if you want to move into a more philosophical debate, and focus on perception. My personal perception, finds it impossible to ignore that any caring all powerful being allowing such unspeakable abuse of sentient feeling creatures, cannot be both all powerful and loving at the same time.

One thing your argument completly fails to supply, is YOUR explanation.
If your explanation is so superior. Tell me what bought God into existence?

And I agree, that perception is the foundation of personal human experience. Which is why the Sciences are to be applauded for attempting to remove personal subjective perception from the equation, to the best of human ability, by attempting to find objective, proveable verifiable means to percive the universe. I'm not sure that will or could ever be achieved, but at least Science attempts it.

How is your belief in God, not also subject to the same arguments you raise against science?


ps. i've never once claimed intelligence. If you believe my arguments to seem intelligent, that's your perception. I consider myself to be a pretty normal guy, trying to figure out what on earth this thing we called life is. I'd like to share your belief in God, of course i would, I don't want death to be the end, and it would be nice to think that there is someone out there looking out for us. But he'd have a lot of explaining to do if he did suddently decide to show himself. Do you seriously think anyone would choose to believe that death is the end, that there is no God looking out for us, without damn good reasons?
It would be insanity to willingly choose death over eternal life, to choose losing your loved ones over cherishing them for eternity. It takes a lot to put your own wishes aside in favour of the facts as they present themselves, especially when those facts are in direct contradiction to what you want to be true.
If you're right, that would be awesome, but its going to take more than a post with a seemingly mocking tone to convince me.

Oh and, with all sincerity, welcome to the forum . We may not agree on things, but we share this little blue planet, and I don't like to make enemys over differences in world view. Some of my closest friends have utterly opposing beliefs to me, i think thats part of what defines true intelligence (not claiming i have it, but it's nice to aim for), is being able to accept that a difference of opinions, is not a personal war waged against the person you debate with. We can't both be right, but we equally also could both be wrong, lets see who's argument stands up to the most scrutiny, and maybe we can both learn a few things on the journey.

Originally Posted by Dreamstorm9

The shared dream discussion led me to think of this, although i think i have thought of it before but not given it this specific name. Shared dreams can require intention from both people (thats generally how its easiest, right?). But do any of you think breaking into someone else's dream is possible/have you done it?

Ok, I now I know it's possible, because this bastard calling himself Tooth keeps busting into Raven and my dreams uninvited. He's very annoying.

I have good dream control, and I am pretty good at ignoring obnoxious DC's into oblivion, but this guy basically forced me to believe he's real, and he won't leave me alone.

I have not done it, nor will I. I think it's very rude.

I find I rarely have to invite dream characters into my dreams.
The do seem to appear regardless.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

sup ChaybaChayba, you are are absolutely right. There is a simple experiment with a metal hangar you can try that will prove that feelings are magnetic. But trying to explain any of this too SpaceExplorer, Moonshine, or Xei is like trying to teach a rock. They'll deny "any" evidence that challenges their belief system. It's a defense mechanism. Being skeptical about anything is just a defense mechanism to convince themselves that something isn't really happening or true, that would force them and change their view of the world.

I always find it amusing that those who choose to deliberately ignore an ever increasing mass of scientific understanding somehow manage to consider themselves to be open-minded.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

I used to be atheist too, meaning I thought after you died..that's it, your worm food, and I had no problem believing that. But I've also come across too many stories and too much evidence to consider that as the sole truth.

I would have thought the only way to prove that would be to speak to someone whos actually dead.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Nope. Human consciousness is an electromagnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro..._consciousness
The brain is a part of the body. The body generates an electromagnetic field, which is the sum of the EM-fields of the cells in the body. You also think and remember with your little toe, as the EM-field is responsible for consciousness, not the brain alone. This is evidenced by transplant memories.
http://www.med.unc.edu/wellness/main...r%20memory.htm


So you see, most people reason that consciousness is in a fixed state, something solid, therefore, it can't influence anyhting else as it is stuck into the brain. But this is not true, electromagnetic energy behaves more like a fluid and is obviously not stopped by anything. Just like the EM-field of the earth moves the needle of the compass, so does the EM-field of your body move the functions in your cells. Or even in the cells of other people.

Worst kind of pseudo-science. Latch onto a theory you don't really understand and, in a very simplistic spurious way, cobble it together to suit your beliefs.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Worst kind of psuedo-argument.

You're not making things better for yourself, by resulting to schoolyard debating tactics.

Moonshine is completely right.

Worst kind of psuedo-argument... oh wait, was that an argument at all? Nope. Try again.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

You're not making things better for yourself, by resulting to schoolyard debating tactics.

Moonshine is completely right.

Schoolyard debating tactics? Exactly, I was imitating moonshine. How could you not have spot the resemblance between our posts is beyond me.

Also, moonshine is completley right is not an argument, more like a friend-support, try again.