Thread: Shared Dreaming/Making Other People Lucid/ Entering Dreams

Originally Posted by Point

The way I see it the people who embrace the supernatural can be divided into two groups:

1.) Those who delude others for personal gain (some earn money from it, others just get a kick from telling BS)

2.) Those who delude others because they themselves have come to believe those delusions (the vast majority come to believe because of other members of the two groups or the general misinformation which is also partially created by them)

If those people abolished their delusions then they could focus better on what is real. Getting rid of the general misinformation is (in this case, at least) for the good of mankind. Not that I can do much on a large scale like James Randi is doing, but...

The whole idea of my experiment is to involve some people from the second group (those of them who believe they themselves are having shared dreams, e.g. neville) and let them experience first hand that there is nothing to this; that there are no actual shared dreams (because I strongly doubt many of them would believe anything but personal experience). The results of the experiment would hopefully also convince some of the people who are on the verge of beliving this stuff.

I'm not really trying to make people waste their time... actually I'm hoping to make them waste no more of their time on new age and the paranormal.

So you are here to convince others of the impossibility of shared dreams? Whit nothing to back that claim up at the moment just like the other side?

Can I ask why you would take on such a task?

And from this post, if I may, can I draw the conclusion that you have decided that these people are deluded looking at the frequent use of that word in this post?

And the broad use of supernatural, when we here would discuss a specific "target" application... Seems you have a issue whit much that can't be easily first-hand verified or isn't "real" science.
Why do you feel you have a need to disprove this? As I see you have already decided and by such will use any evidence that will back it to your defence. Why would anyone who have had some kind of experience into dream sharing listen to you? You would need to explain the experience in some other way that is plausible and maybe "verifiable" in a sense. Not just simply say they were deluded...

I just don't discard something just because it doesn't fit into my world view or understanding, and I don't just accept something just because someone said it to me, or I read or saw something. I try to take a look in how it might fit in, can I myself check the validity of it, and on how I see it "scientifically" in the world one side and then how it might fit in "spiritually" on the other side.

Scientifically much "supernatural" goes out instantly whit the current mainstream views. But there are some stuff that aren't that mainstream that might explain some of it and to different degrees link in the spiritual. Then there is the spiritual side or religous side, which you would like. Much fringe stuff, to much bullshit and speculation on one end but there are some things to consider and some golden eggs to be found on the other end. Some worthy ideas in some things if you pick out the core/gist of it.

Looking at the world strictly from a material and scientific mainstream way and how the world is going and developing, I can't see something more depressing than that. It literally is HELL, the devils and his subordinates playground if you would like that.
The spiritual has some good advice and teachings on how not let things degrade like that. As I see it the more people have abandoned religion etc they also abandoned the morals and teachings that keept things good in various ways. Sure you don't need religoin and such but keep in mind the damn things that make things go round in positive light.
Religion is a tool for control and can be abused and used in bad and good ways. Mostly it's been in the bad way I would say. But spirituality and the core teachings of the various "religions" which seemingly are lost for most have valid things said that are good to consider or follow.

Dreams and Lucid dreams opens a door to a interesting "spiritual" path. Science can't deny their existence but can't currently explain why we have such. Same thing whit why life exists for that matter. What makes it tick.
Quantum stuff and such have some interesting discoveries I would say. The science we have today is full of holes and non matching parts.

Originally Posted by Point

I'm not really trying to make people waste their time... actually I'm hoping to make them waste no more of their time on new age and the paranormal.

You know, there is reliable scientific data out there that does have fairly conclusive implications, that many would regard as "paranormal"...

I posted this link earlier, it's a shame nobody has commented on it: Global Consciousness Project.


The Global Consciousness Project is a study that Princeton University has been conducting over the last decade or so, pertaining to the collective global state of consciousness among humans and its effect on (so called) random numbers, generated by random number generators placed throughout the world. So far, the data collected seems to suggest that the amount of connection between what is going through people's minds throughout the world does have a small effect on the structure of randomly generated numbers. Although the effect is usually too small to make an accurate conclusion for each time, the correlation between global events and the structure of randomly generated numbers is actually quite significant, suggesting that the organization of consciousness on a global scale does indeed have an effect on the physical world. Sounds like typical New Age bullshit, huh?

Go ahead and click on the link I posted above, they don't seem to have hidden much about how they are going about this experiment. You can basically see for yourself exactly what the raw data is, and exactly what their methods are for mathematically interpreting the data. Really, they aren't making any claims of any sort, they are just posting the information as it is, and posting their calculations as well. With what is shown here, you can't say that the results show that consciousness' effect on the physical world is SURELY existent, but you can see quite clearly that the evidence at hand actually seems to suggest that it is most likely existent.


Now I know that has nothing to do with shared dreaming necessarily, but it is some scientific backing for something that would otherwise be undoubtedly regarded as paranormal. If you really believe that the "paranormal" has absolutely no scientific backing, and that it completely goes against everything that scientific studies have showed us, then I would suggest that you do more research on the topic.


In any case, I don't know what to think about whether or not shared dreaming exists. There seems to be a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence, although so far I haven't heard of any actual scientific experiment exclusively on the topic(though that may be something worth looking into). It is quite an extreme claim though, and it would be unwise to regard claims of this sort without hesitation. Either way, I feel as though I do not have enough evidence at hand to arrive at a sufficiently accurate conclusion.

Originally Posted by Nighthog

So you are here to convince others of the impossibility of shared dreams? Whit nothing to back that claim up at the moment just like the other side?

I have nothing to back me up, nor do you. Now wouldn't an objective experiment support the one who is right? If we were to go through with this I'd be proven correct. So I can understand why you wouldn't want to. Frankly I was surprised when neville offered to give it a go... but he does clearly believe that he can enter other people's dreams. Since he also believes in experimental verification he is one of the people who could realize that there are no shared dreams following the experiment. But I suppose it was naive to presume anyone else here would be willing to put their beliefs (yes, beliefs- you have no evidence for your claims which would not be supported by contemporary science) to the test.

Originally Posted by Nighthog

And from this post, if I may, can I draw the conclusion that you have decided that these people are deluded looking at the frequent use of that word in this post?

If they believe in things which aren't true, then yes. *I'm not a native English speaker so I beg your pardon if that's not the correct word.

Originally Posted by Nighthog

Why do you feel you have a need to disprove this?

See my previous post.

Originally Posted by Nighthog

As I see you have already decided and by such will use any evidence that will back it to your defence.

Wouldn't evidence back the one who is right?

Originally Posted by Nighthog

Why would anyone who have had some kind of experience into dream sharing listen to you?

Because they would assume the evidence would be on their side?

Originally Posted by Nighthog

Seems you have a issue whit much that can't be easily first-hand verified or isn't "real" science.

While I do have an issue with that as well this is different. We are talking about claims which are easily verifiable. They just aren't true and the people who could verify their validity aren't willing to do so.

@Peel

A bit of googling says those statistics may well be be a fluke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...ness#Criticism
http://www.skepticnews.com/2005/04/terry_schiavo_a.html
http://www.skepdic.com/globalconsciousness.html

So they aren't really evidence... but the experiment I outlined a page back would provide evidence when performed in a controlled environment (and yeah, if shared dreaming were to be true).

And I'm quite sure nobody has claimed Randi's prize yet. If they had any way to collect proper evidence of the supernatural (any kind of supernatural) then they could have done so. And consider that many paranormal claims (telekinesis, ESP, etc.) are actually easy to test.

Originally Posted by Point

@Peel

A bit of googling says those statistics may well be be a fluke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...ness#Criticism
http://www.skepticnews.com/2005/04/terry_schiavo_a.html
http://www.skepdic.com/globalconsciousness.html

So they aren't really evidence... but the experiment I outlined a page back would provide evidence when performed in a controlled environment (and yeah, if shared dreaming were to be true).

Believe me, I have done my fair share of reading on the criticism of the project. From what I recall, the actual official website has an entire section of events that seem like they should have had an effect, but did not.

If you go back and read what I originally said, I didn't say that it was proof, I said that the data shows that it's probable.

Once again, the ENTIRE PROCEDURE for the experiment is available for public viewing on the website, raw data included, so you yourself can see what's really going on in there. They aren't making any claims, they are only presenting data, procedure, interpretation of the data, and reasoning behind all of their interpretations and procedural decisions. What can you do? The data isn't absolutely perfect, and they mention that. However, there is a high enough correlation in the outcome so that it is not unreasonable to suspect a relationship between consciousness and random numbers being generated.

All the criticism you have linked me to suggests that they are telling us something and that what they are telling us is inaccurate. Having this attitude to begin with says a lot about the reputability of the critics, because if you really look into it, this experiment is a legitimate formal scientific experiment with an objective perception of the results, and is conducted by a prestigious university(yeah I know, just because it's Princeton doesn't mean it's right. Still, I think it says something, as Princeton has a reputation to protect, and they probably have a low tolerance for bullshit experiments).

Yeah, so far there hasn't been any proof of anything paranormal, that's true. Be that as it may, empirical scientific experiments and objective analyzation thus far have indeed shown us that specific paranormal phenomena are not only possible, but in some cases even probable. This is what the evidence has shown us, you don't have to believe in paranormal phenomena (there is wiggle room in the evidence, after all), but at this point it would be downright unreasonable to regard it all as utter nonsense.

I'm not saying you're wrong in saying that it's all nonsense, I don't know that. All I'm saying is that it is wrong of you to say so with such certainty, as there is legitimate scientific evidence working both for you and against you. Don't delude yourself into thinking that all the evidence collected thus far has clearly shown that the paranormal is nonexistent. You seem to agree that it is best for one to avoid delusion...

Originally Posted by Point

Is my post really that hard to understand? I'm not willing to flap my arms!

Look at this from my perspective:

Suppose someone said that it's possible to fly just by flapping your arms... and they like totally know someone else who can do it. If flight is achievable in that manner then THE easiest way to prove that is for them to demonstrate it under fair observational conditions. Why would anyone BUT the person who makes such a claim try doing it? And why oh why wouldn't these people do it? Who doesn't want two million dollars?

Let them show us and stop depriving scientists of the valuable new insights into the nature of the universe.

I have tried flapping my arms to see if I could fly. It didn't work.

I have tried shared dreaming to see if I could have the same dream as someone. It did work.

Why are you so afraid to try it yourself?

Their experiment only suggests that their hypothesis is possibly true. It's also possibly true that they are seeing patterns where there are none. Occam's razor suggests the second option is more likely.

Extraordinary claims like "telekinesis is real" would require equally extraordinary evidence, such as a person with bona fide telekinesis. I suppose wierdness can happen, but with people who believe in the supernatural making ridiculous claims for so long without there being a shread solid evidence for any of them I'm not even giving supernatural phenomenna the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Technically I might be wrong about this, pink unicorns and all, but while there is a chance that the paranormal is real I find it no more likely than the chance that we are living in the Matrix. I would like to see some bending spoons first.

Please don't bury my question. K, thanks.

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

Please don't bury my question. K, thanks.

Ah, thanks, didn't notice I've been ninja'd.

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

I have tried flapping my arms to see if I could fly. It didn't work.

That's odd. You probably weren't trying hard enough. You know there's this guy in my neighbourhood who does loads of meditation and stuff and he can do it. Maybe you should take up meditation first?

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

I have tried shared dreaming to see if I could have the same dream as someone. It did work.

Why are you so afraid to try it yourself?

An experiment would still be the only way for either side to prove the other wrong. If I did try shared dreaming and told you it didn't work would you change your mind about it? Anyway if I tried my own experiment I'd never get anywhere. It wouldn't work for anyone else either, but that's the point: neville, for instance, says it would. We can test that. Then he at the very least would learn the truth.

Originally Posted by Point

I have nothing to back me up, nor do you. Now wouldn't an objective experiment support the one who is right? If we were to go through with this I'd be proven correct. So I can understand why you wouldn't want to. Frankly I was surprised when neville offered to give it a go... but he does clearly believe that he can enter other people's dreams. Since he also believes in experimental verification he is one of the people who could realize that there are no shared dreams following the experiment. But I suppose it was naive to presume anyone else here would be willing to put their beliefs (yes, beliefs- you have no evidence for your claims which would not be supported by contemporary science) to the test.

I can't join the test. I haven't gotten close to the "mastery" required for dream control. I have no real control at all yet but to choose to walk here or there and focus on maybe being interested in this character. I haven't been able to remember yet what I set out to do before I went to sleep what I intended to do in LD. Just haven't tried enough to really use my full capabilities of my mind to imprint the beliefs required for them to be true in dream land. Using same beliefs to be true in awake land will only get yourself hurt or ridiculed whit how the world is seemed to be perceived to work here.

The way I see dreams work is that there are no rules that limit what may happen but your own "beliefs" in what is possible and not possible that restrict you. If I change the beliefs so do I also change the rules in how things operate. Doesn't mean same things are possible in this "constant" hard to change "awake" reality. This world is quite limited as it stands now.
Dream land has no real limits but your own seen limits or unseen sub-concious convictions on how something should work. I work on changing the "beliefs" I have concious and sub-concious to not apply real world reality to dream reality.

If they believe in things which aren't true, then yes. *I'm not a native English speaker so I beg your pardon if that's not the correct word.

English is my third language... deluded is a strong statement here I would say. More soft would be "misguided", if I may say.
And If you believe it's not true it's so much harder for you to do anything in a dream.

See my previous post.

I see this as avoidance to answer. You haven't shizzled the idea out from the rock yet maybe?
What's the reason you feel for your need to put time and effort to convince others about the falsity about things that aren't cleared out to be true or not, and can't be proven either way in any time soon.
You limit yourself whit requiring scientific results but also not providing means for in which people actually could prove it as such meaningfully, you put all the balls on the others side to prove to you everything whit you basically sitting there doing nothing but refuting it. We lack also the scientific means on how to explain the possibility of it. We can only confirm whit tests if it works in a sense. But a test will be hard. It's not easy in any way and you put it all on the claimers side to do everything for you. This won't attract much people to go along. Add you being biased... I would suggest you try to make a smoke and mirrors on you seeming being interested in at least "believing" it's a possibility. It will not make it harder for to get people that way, probably more easy to find if you would actually try and see it from the subjects views even at least even if it's all a illusion that you would believe it and have set out to disprove it.

Wouldn't evidence back the one who is right?

You make is sound simple when it's not. Dreams work in many ways. You must be aware that at any moment you can fool yourself in any way possible, remember anything is possible in a dream if you believe in everything. Trying to then also find the few that seemingly didn't fool them selves will... well take time and effort. Add trying to figure out how one didn't fool yourself inside the dream will take time. Everything is so mushy that trying to find and solid evidence won't be possible in any easy way in a dream context. Basically dreams aren't as solid in any way as our everyday "awake" world is.
Evidence to prove dream sharing is highly biased to back up the claim that it's not possible from our solid awake reality view whit current understanding off the world. I would see that you would no matter what only at best get questionable data that it might be possible in some way. You can't give anything solid at all and it will be questioned or seen as also evidence from same data that it's more likely not possible because off the lack off "solid" evidence or explained away whit other "science".

I would say much "science" is more on about beliefs than science if you would look at it critically. Much is discarded if it conflicts whit "mainstream" accepted understanding. If it doesn't make sense it's ignored etc. I could probably go in more here but I don't feel like it.

Because they would assume the evidence would be on their side?

I would have pointed it more onto the that you have already decided that you actually say it didn't happen and from their view it did. Normally if you deny something happened that a person in actually has experienced.. How do you think they would respond? Not in a way they would go along whit your claims or suggestions for them to need to prove it to you or etc etc.
You require much for nothing. If they feel content whit their belief many feel no need to try and convince some other that will be too much hassle.
Even scientists back rub each other that conform to their beliefs.

While I do have an issue with that as well this is different. We are talking about claims which are easily verifiable. They just aren't true and the people who could verify their validity aren't willing to do so.

I mentioned above it's nothing close to easily verify. Easy to pile stuff up to disprove it for sure is.

Originally Posted by Point

An experiment would still be the only way for either side to prove the other wrong. If I did try shared dreaming and told you it didn't work would you change your mind about it? Anyway if I tried my own experiment I'd never get anywhere. It wouldn't work for anyone else either, but that's the point: neville, for instance, says it would. We can test that. Then he at the very least would learn the truth.

If you want to do a real experiment, follow the scientific method, state your hypothesis, and do it hundreds of times before coming to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by Nighthog

I see this as avoidance to answer. You haven't shizzled the idea out from the rock yet maybe?
What's the reason you feel for your need to put time and effort to convince others about the falsity about things that aren't cleared out to be true or not, and can't be proven either way in any time soon.

Actually I never intended to invest too much time into this... though it doesn't really matter which website I waste my time on. On the other hand it would seem that since this thread got moved to Beyond Dreaming I'm just getting involved in petty squabbles with believers. May be time to unsubscribe from this thread...

Oh, and "shared dreaming would be easy to prove if real" is something I've said like half a dozen times now?

Originally Posted by Nighthog

You limit yourself whit requiring scientific results but also not providing means for in which people actually could prove it as such meaningfully, you put all the balls on the others side to prove to you everything whit you basically sitting there doing nothing but refuting it. We lack also the scientific means on how to explain the possibility of it.

Huh? If you don't do it properly then it's not a real test. I provided you with all the instructions you need for a proper test on the previous page. And nobody is asking you to explain things like telekinesis - just demonstrate it in front of the right audience and you get 2 million dollars. No one has done anything like that.

Originally Posted by Nighthog

We can only confirm whit tests if it works in a sense.

Absolutely! Tests are NOT about confirming something no matter what, they're about confirming something if it's true. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by Nighthog

Add you being biased...

Have you actually read the experiment proposal? How, may I ask, would I be able to alter the results? If I merely reported each pair of words then I obviously couldn't change anything without those involved noticing. And those results would speak for themselves (e.g: 10 attempts, 8 successes = epic win for your side).

Originally Posted by Nighthog

Evidence to prove dream sharing is highly biased to back up the claim that it's not possible from our solid awake reality view whit current understanding off the world. I would see that you would no matter what only at best get questionable data that it might be possible in some way. You can't give anything solid at all and it will be questioned or seen as also evidence from same data that it's more likely not possible because off the lack off "solid" evidence or explained away whit other "science".

So you don't believe one can communicate via shared dreams? If you believe that two people can only be dreaming about the same thing rather than actually the same thing ... then I have to agree with that. But that sort of "shared dreams" would not at all necessarily be paranormal and couldn't be subjected to my experiment. The kind of shared dreaming from the anecdote given to us by Lucidity444 in this thread, however, is something that could be proven with an experiment. Not only to me, you could prove it to any scientist (or rather all of them at once).

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

If you want to do a real experiment, follow the scientific method, state your hypothesis, and do it hundreds of times before coming to a conclusion.

I would need people who claim they could communicate with others via shared dreams. I've only got one person so far and need a minimum of two. Care to help out? And we wouldn't need to do it anywhere near hundreds of times - with a list of thirty words the chances of getting it right for the first three "attempts with succesful contact" would be 1:27000. Something like that would be good enough for me. And zero success in all of the cases where you both thought you shared a dream would presumably be good enough for you after five or ten such attempts?

Point I would not say the test you suggested is proper.

More like it's a simpler test to be good enough for you to consider it looking at the results you will get if you now can find people whit the "requirements" and also agree to take this on.(there really are few people that can do it at will, in contrast to people that maybe on "accident" manage it, which also isn't that large of a populace)

And every instance for sure wont be "real" dream shares I can see and understand from how dreams work, many can just be "semi shared" some aspects might be same but others different. Being they were influenced, thinking about the same stuff and as such experienced similar events. There can exists true real shared dreams but I myself haven't gotten there to prove it to myself yet. Some might embrace a "semi" share as a real one and come to you but then the results will show whatever they show.
There is rigorous discipline needed from my side to not take things for granted. I risk fall down in vicous loop of non nice things unless I do.

My own "beliefs" much aren't solid. I keep much out in a buffer as "unverified", but that is like everything though...
To be more closely inspected at times or pushed out further if things don't add up or I learn other "beliefs" that might conflict. As of yet I don't have many solid beliefs about the world that I keep as true of truth. I have a preference to hope for some things to be true though and some others false, but I must keep in mind that I haven't proven it to myself yet. At times this is remembered, at times forgotten, I have not perfected it in any way but just try to keep it in mind. I need high discipline but I have low much of the time. So I fall for things I should keep as unverified as truths, but I sooner or later realize it in some way or not.
I see it as it a must to try and see things from many view points, if there isn't a obvious alternative one? Make it up!
Much of the true truths are more like "these things I can't verify"...

Shared dreaming? For sure I can try and verify it myself, but so far I haven't and will keep it as a I hope it will work out. And I am more inclined whit closely embraced "uncertainties" to believe it's possible and do also hope for it's possibility, even to the extent to make myself believe it for the sake off changing my look of the world in my sub-concious for to be able to do it in dream land. It's mind bending stuff you need to put yourself in.

Originally Posted by Point

I would need people who claim they could communicate with others via shared dreams. I've only got one person so far and need a minimum of two. Care to help out? And we wouldn't need to do it anywhere near hundreds of times - with a list of thirty words the chances of getting it right for the first three "attempts with succesful contact" would be 1:27000. Something like that would be good enough for me. And zero success in all of the cases where you both thought you shared a dream would presumably be good enough for you after five or ten such attempts?

Help? Help what? That is rhetorical.

Real scientists state their hypothesis, then collect massive data before coming to a conclusion. Here's an idea; you have massive data right under your nose.

Since you are good at calculating probability, why don't you do this for a scientific experiment:

1) Go through the shared dreams DJ.
2) Now, for each dream, list the number of things that are alike for each dream.
3) Then, calculate the probability of that happening coincidentally, for each dream. Have fun with all that data!

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

Help? Help what? That is rhetorical.

Originally Posted by Point

I would need people who claim they could communicate with others via shared dreams. I've only got one person so far and need a minimum of two. Care to help out?

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

Now, for each dream, list the number of things that are alike for each dream.

So you admit that all the supposed "shared dreams" are merely dreams which have a few elements in common. Like the setting and the persons involved - where "meeting places" are agreed on ahead of time anyway so the two dreamers can "meet". Not that I haven't suspected as much...

I've had about enough of this thread. Carry on without me if you wish to.

Geez its like reading a game of tennis...

Im interested in this but I haven't lucid yet...if I do eventually get it I'll try. It will probably be atleast another couple weeks though.

Originally Posted by Point

So you admit that all the supposed "shared dreams" are merely dreams which have a few elements in common. Like the setting and the persons involved - where "meeting places" are agreed on ahead of time anyway so the two dreamers can "meet". Not that I haven't suspected as much...

I've had about enough of this thread. Carry on without me if you wish to.

Real scientists state their hypothesis, then collect massive data before coming to a conclusion. Here's an idea; you have massive data right under your nose.

Since you are good at calculating probability, why don't you do this for a scientific experiment:

1) Go through the shared dreams DJ.
2) Now, for each dream, list the number of things that are alike for each dream.
3) Then, calculate the probability of that happening coincidentally, for each dream. Have fun with all that data!

Fascinating!

Well I am not on either side of if shared dreaming exists or not but you shouldn't write all of this with no information about it and calling people who believe delusional is just critisizm

Originally Posted by Point

So you admit that all the supposed "shared dreams" are merely dreams which have a few elements in common. Like the setting and the persons involved - where "meeting places" are agreed on ahead of time anyway so the two dreamers can "meet". Not that I haven't suspected as much...

I've had about enough of this thread. Carry on without me if you wish to.

I'm not going to get into an argument about this, but I would like to say that the dreams I have had that I accept as definite shared dreams have more than just 'a few' elements in common. It is basically the same events as seen from two different perspectives. I also think shared dreaming is something you have to experience / verify for yourself. There are too many ways evidence could be falsified or real evidence could be dismissed. I, myself, have experienced enough to say without a doubt that it is real. I tried to set up an experiment like you proposed with someone else but it fell apart, so I am no longer interested in proving shared dreaming to anyone else. Good luck finding your answers.

Originally Posted by Point

I don't, actually. In the same vein that I can't know for sure that I can't fly by flapping my arms . (I mean in real life) You know, I might just need to like try really hard. For some reason I'm not going to, though. If there are people who claim they can do it let one of them show us.

P.S. I LOL'ed at the idea of flapping your arms really fast to fly!
The physics behind this idea would require a lift greater than 700 N for an average human to reach flight. However, biologically, no human on Earth could flap their arms that hard or fast.

No experiment done over a forum or online is going to hold up as scientific. Even if it is "proven," then what? It isn't proven to anyone but the person who insisted on having it proven to them. Everyone else just has to take their word that the experiment worked. That's why no one would bother to waste their time doing it.

If someone could dreamshare easily and wanted to prove it, they would pick up the phone and call LaBerg or whoever else willing to set up the experiment in a controlled environment. Which is highly encouraged, by the way.

Originally Posted by Naiya

No experiment done over a forum or online is going to hold up as scientific. Even if it is "proven," then what? It isn't proven to anyone but the person who insisted on having it proven to them. Everyone else just has to take their word that the experiment worked. That's why no one would bother to waste their time doing it.

If someone could dreamshare easily and wanted to prove it, they would pick up the phone and call LaBerg or whoever else willing to set up the experiment in a controlled environment. Which is highly encouraged, by the way.

I already tried to contact him, and got no response. fukkit

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

I already tried to contact him, and got no response. fukkit

i think it's worth more than that. the revelation that shared dreaming is in fact a real phenomenon would be *huge*. considering your experience with it and prevalence of skepticism, i would personally be eager to prove the phenomenon if i were you.

the problem with the anecdotal evidence i've read on this forum is that it's not controlled. we can never know if shared dreamers were simply lying (not likely), if they somehow, intentionally or unintentionally, subtly suggested the contents of the dream prior to discovering that they had shared the dream, etc. an experiment is the only way to verify this phenomenon; such verification would be a massive advancement in the field of dreaming, imho.

Check this out. It has even converted a skeptic:

http://www.lucidipedia.com/forum/ind...ewtopic&t=1610

note: Robert Waggoner is a well-known author on precognitive/shared/telepathic dreams.

Happened to me once. I was not present in a physical form but I was watching and changing the other persons dream world. They began to have a nightmare and I lucidly counteracted the nightmare-ish bits.

e.g. sealing doors behind them. slowing down characters.

it was the strangest thing. the person by chance began to tell me about the dream later in the day and my stomach just sunk as I was basically able to finish sentences about what happened in the dream.

Needless to say my friend was very very freaked out by me for a while. It hasn't happened since.