does anyone else feel this?

[Arcadia]

I love this site and www.astralpulse.com (which seems to be just a more complete version of this site? am i wrong) but when it comes to all this lucid dreaming etc i just dont have time! But the thing is i do have time i have loads of time in yet laziness just gets in the way and i feel ill never achieve any of this

[Tsen]

Yeah, I guess it is a more complete version of Dream Views if you're a nutjob. Unfortunately, we here at Dream Views, with the exception of the Beyond Dreaming forum, are sane. Well, mostly. See, magic and all that has absolutely no basis in the real world. None. And this site is geared towards the real world, while that site seems to be geared towards the mystical (and imaginary) world(s). Not to mention we've got more info on LD's in general, rather than on Astral Projections alone. (EDIT: Well, they've got more than info on Astral Projections, but I can't find many threads on Lucidity in general) So, anyways, was there any specific point of your post? Are you asking for advice on how to fit Lucid Dreaming into a busy daily schedule? (or a lazy one?) Or were you just notifying us of AstralPulse's existence or something? And if any of you feel like arguing, I'd be happy to engage you on the veracity of Astral Projections, magic, ghosts and all that other crap you guys seem to stockpile. Y'know, just if you feel like it.

[Toefur]

That's Robert Bruce's site isn't it. I got a signed copy of his book from him for my 18th Birthday, years ago. He's a great guy. As for time and laziness, I have suffered from this issues too. There is a solution, however. Time: If you want to learn to have lucid dreams/obe's then you need to make time. You really don't need heaps of time, you just need patience and you need to work things (like reality checks) into your every day life. You will have to give up time to write in your dream journal, but if lucidity is your goal... it will be a labour of love! Same thing for laziness. This held me back for a long time, but I'm finally over coming it. You just have to force yourself over this particular hurdle. Remember to do everything you need to do, and when you remember to do something (be it writing dreams down, trying out a new technique like WILD or something) even if you can't be bothered, or don't feel like it, just DO IT. It won't take long. And the big pay off at the end will be worth all that blood and sweat...

[Arcadia]

Originally posted by Tsen I'd be happy to engage you on the veracity of Astral Projections, magic, ghosts and all that other crap you guys seem to stockpile. What you dont believe in it? Ghosts i mean,im not very clued up on "magic"

[Kaniaz]

Originally posted by Arcadia+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Arcadia)</div> <!--QuoteBegin-Tsen I'd be happy to engage you on the veracity of Astral Projections, magic, ghosts and all that other crap you guys seem to stockpile. What you dont believe in it? Ghosts i mean,im not very clued up on \"magic\"[/b] No. Somehow I don't think he does. And neither do I. Ghosts, the evil thing in white sheets created to scare little children at night.

[Arcadia]

Originally posted by Kaniaz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kaniaz)</div> Originally posted by Arcadia@ <!--QuoteBegin-Tsen I'd be happy to engage you on the veracity of Astral Projections, magic, ghosts and all that other crap you guys seem to stockpile. What you dont believe in it? Ghosts i mean,im not very clued up on \"magic\" No. Somehow I don't think he does. And neither do I. Ghosts, the evil thing in white sheets created to scare little children at night. [/b] That is possibly the most ignorant remark i have ever heard in my life

[Kaniaz]

Originally posted by Arcadia+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Arcadia)</div> Originally posted by Kaniaz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kaniaz) <!--QuoteBegin-Arcadia @ <!--QuoteBegin-Tsen I'd be happy to engage you on the veracity of Astral Projections, magic, ghosts and all that other crap you guys seem to stockpile. What you dont believe in it? Ghosts i mean,im not very clued up on \"magic\" No. Somehow I don't think he does. And neither do I. Ghosts, the evil thing in white sheets created to scare little children at night. [/b] That is possibly the most ignorant remark i have ever heard in my life[/b][/quote] Of course you're not ignorant because you believe blindly in these things, right?

[Arcadia]

[quote] Of course you're not ignorant because you believe blindly in these things, right? [quote] That doesnt really make any sense i believe in it because its true ??? Ghosts, the evil thing in white sheets created to scare little children at night Where exactly did you did you get this from?

[LucidDreamGod]

I think that dreamviews is still better because we talk about stuff you can do easily I mean about 90% of people here have had lucid dreams if not 10 LD's, in that site 2% of people have had astral projection, and dreamviews focuses on stuff that revolves around RL, that we can do about 5% of it is fake, in that site about 40% of it is fake, I'm not critizising you or the site, but I just like dreamviews better for that, that is the Question you asked, don't get me wrong I realy like to astral project if I could, sounds like you beleive in ghosts, take my advice its just a bunch of crap (sorry for the harsh remark) the ghost thing is done by a bunch of nerds who have no girlfriends <----- Signs Quote

[Kaniaz]

Originally posted by Arcadia That doesnt really make any sense i believe in it because its true ??? No...it's not true. Try again. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE Ghosts, the evil thing in white sheets created to scare little children at night [/b] Where exactly did you did you get this from?[/b][/quote] Common interpretation of ghosts.

[OpheliaBlue]

Ghosts again?! I wish bradybaker would get in on this.

[bradybaker]

I was trying to avoid jumping in here, but at Ophelia's request, I guess I'll take a crack at it. It's been my experience that people who believe in things like ghosts are so beyond reasonable thinking that they will pretty much tune out anything that you say to convince them otherwise. Originally posted by Arcadia What you dont believe in it? Ghosts i mean That is possibly the most ignorant remark i have ever heard in my life[/b] i believe in it because its true[/b] Ok, so it's pretty clear that you believe in ghosts. Before I go any further, would you care to justify that belief?

[Tsen]

Yay! I won a free argument! And free music! (Thank you Pepsi!) Anyway, as BradyBaker suggested, give us some evidence! Well, here's what evidence I've got against it. Okay, see, this is how things work! According to heaven knows how many laws of physics, in order to affect reality (whether it be by reflecting light, moving objects or whatever) something must have matter. As in, a body and such. Now, there may or may not be some exceptions on the quantum scale, but those are irrevelant for this discussion. Now, this is because, in order for light to reflect off something, there must be something there to reflect off of. Something does not include "spirits," because "spirits" are not matter, according to the theory of the conservation of matter. Now, again there are some exceptions to the law of conservation of matter, (E=MC^2 and all that stuff), but again, it is irrelevant. Now, since no matter is lost from a body when somebody dies, we must assume that a ghost has no matter. Now, with no matter, how do you suppose a ghost could be detected? With no atoms existing within a 'ghost', what would the light reflect off of? Therefore it isn't visible. Now, since there's no atoms to vibrate (or lack vibration) there is no heat, or lack of heat, therefore it cannot be picked up with infared detectors. I have some other, deeper thoughts and theories on the matter, if anybodies interested, but for now this will do. -Taylor

[albinox]

Arcadia, I believe in ghosts too.

[Resnemetan]

I also believe in ghosts(i never refer to them as ghosts though) and magick and such things, although I have not witnessed much proof of any of those things.

[Tsen]

Why, though?

[Yogi Bare]

Tsen, I don't entirely disagree with your post, but I want to put some points to you. There are some holes in your argument that make it difficult for me to take your post as absolute fact, rather than just how you personally view it. For the record, I don't believe in 'ghosts' per se, but I do believe there is a lot more to the universe than we know, and I accept the possibility that some or much of this could be, um, 'spiritual?', for want of a better word. (Y'know, like gods, ghosts, Karma, ESP, whatever) in order to affect reality (whether it be by reflecting light, moving objects or whatever) something must have matter. [/b] The immediate exception that springs to mind is gravity. It has no measurable mass and is not detectable in itself, but we know it's real for the obvious reasons. I'm sure there are others. As in, a body and such. Now, there may or may not be some exceptions on the quantum scale, those are irrelevant for this discussion.[/b] How is a legitimate area of physics irrelevant in any argument, when the argument is to prove(or disprove) something by way of physics? Many religions use a similar approach when 'proving' the 'truth' of their doctrine. Can we say for certain that there is no connection between quantum physics and the paranormal? If not then we cannot exclude it. Now, since no matter is lost from a body when somebody dies, we must assume that a ghost has no matter. [/b] That's a perfectly fair assumption, but who said a spirit has matter? what would the light reflect off of? [/b] Again, a fair assumption, but you then have to assume any such ghosts would be 'seen' by means of light reflection. Would it not be a fair argument to say that any 'sixth sense' might have it's own type of perception that would not be taken through the eyes? For example you can't see a sound and you can't hear a colour, how could you be sure that you would 'see' a ghost in the conventional manner? I have some other, deeper thoughts and theories on the matter, if anybodies interested, but for now this will do.[/b] I'm interested to hear those, I find it interesting to hear peoples views on these things. No offence intended in any of this Tsen

[Kaniaz]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE in order to affect reality (whether it be by reflecting light, moving objects or whatever) something must have matter. [/b] The immediate exception that springs to mind is gravity. It has no measurable mass and is not detectable in itself, but we know it's real for the obvious reasons. I'm sure there are others.[/b][/quote] I can't answer that, I know nothing about it. I do know you can sort of measure gravity though. Kind of. I think. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE As in, a body and such. Now, there may or may not be some exceptions on the quantum scale, those are irrelevant for this discussion.[/b] How is a legitimate area of physics irrelevant in any argument, when the argument is to prove(or disprove) something by way of physics? Many religions use a similar approach when 'proving' the 'truth' of their doctrine. Can we say for certain that there is no connection between quantum physics and the paranormal? If not then we cannot exclude it.[/b][/quote] Won't try and answer that which I have no idea about. I should really read up on this because all the time I hear \"quantum psyhics\". It reminds me of the almighty topic that nobody knows nothing about so they use it so nobody argues. But I'm just making excuses for my lack of knowldege. To the wikipedia. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE Now, since no matter is lost from a body when somebody dies, we must assume that a ghost has no matter. [/b] That's a perfectly fair assumption, but who said a spirit has matter?[/b][/quote] What spirits? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE what would the light reflect off of? [/b] Again, a fair assumption, but you then have to assume any such ghosts would be 'seen' by means of light reflection. Would it not be a fair argument to say that any 'sixth sense' might have it's own type of perception that would not be taken through the eyes? For example you can't see a sound and you can't hear a colour, how could you be sure that you would 'see' a ghost in the conventional manner?[/b][/quote] This argument is fast rolling to being the normal "I have proof. Except you can't see it with any methods of perception we have!" argument. You can see gravity because of the effects it has on the envirroment (I suppose). But you can't see ghosts at all, unless you use some sort of ESP-meter-imbued-with-Allahs-almighty-presence that is a load of rubbish anyway. Or rely on dodgy photos or "experiences". That just isn't good enough. It's just like the invisible pink unicorn (blessed be her hooves). She's invisible. She's pink. But she's defintely there man, because she's got just as much reliable evidence as ghosts so she's true. She flies too!

[Wicked]

And I believe in The Pink Unicorn. Why? Because it's true, of course! What, of COURSE I don't need to have any proof for this, nor do I need to make any sense, or be logical for that matter Critical thinking is the magic word. People today are so full of sheer stupid that I sometimes wish to have a short life, just so I won't have to experience the pain of witnessing these people running the world.

[Yogi Bare]

you can sort of measure gravity though[/b] You can only measure gravity by observing it's effects, there is no way to measure it directly. With a pound of sugar, for instance, there is something physical to measure directly in whatever way you like, not so with gravity. It reminds me of the almighty topic that nobody knows nothing about so they use it so nobody argues[/b] You're right that people often use it to justify things in a kind of 'smoke and mirrors' way, and that is just as irrational as saying 'God moves in mysterious ways' when you can't explain war or famine, but that's not what I'm doing here. QP experiments repeatedly show the rules of QP often directly contradict the rules of regular physics. My point is not that X is being proved by use of QP, just that the rules of regular physics are not constant and absolute in all situations, and if the rules of physics are not absolute you cannot use them as proof of the non-existance of something - certainly not until you've worked out where, why and how the inconsistencies come about. For the same reason, you cannot exlude them from an argument if you want to use the rules of physics as your base of logic, which is what Tsen did. What spirits? [/b] for the purposes of my post, spirits = ghosts This argument is fast rolling to being the normal \"I have proof. Except you can't see it with any methods of perception we have!\" argument.[/b] I'm not saying I have proof of anything, I'm not even saying that there is something there to prove the existnce of, just that Tsen's argument has some holes in it. You can't prove the non-existence of something simply by an absence of proof, just as you can't prove the presence of something by the lack of contradictory evidence. Or rely on dodgy photos or \"experiences\". That just isn't good enough. It's just like the invisible pink unicorn (blessed be her hooves). She's invisible. She's pink. But she's defintely there man, because she's got just as much reliable evidence as ghosts so she's true. She flies too![/b] I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm not trying to prove the existence of anything, quite the opposite. I'm trying to demonstrate that (despite all the anecdotal evidence and logical theories in favour of both sides of the argument) there is no absolute proof either way, and therefore opinions on the existence of something, or otherwise, are simply opinions and nothing more. If you feel you have a sound method for absolutely proving the non-existance of something then please share it, but I've not heard one theory yet that doesn't rely on some unprovable assumptions, leaving gaping holes in the argument.

[Kaniaz]

Originally posted by Yogi Bare you can sort of measure gravity though You can only measure gravity by observing it's effects, there is no way to measure it directly. With a pound of sugar, for instance, there is something physical to measure directly in whatever way you like, not so with gravity.[/b] Hmm, ok. I think. I'm probably *very* wrong, but I thought there was a \"kinda\" way to measure gravity, which is the mass of the object eg: Jupiter. Then you perform some fancy formulae to get the answer. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE It reminds me of the almighty topic that nobody knows nothing about so they use it so nobody argues[/b] You're right that people often use it to justify things in a kind of 'smoke and mirrors' way, and that is just as irrational as saying 'God moves in mysterious ways' when you can't explain war or famine, but that's not what I'm doing here. QP experiments repeatedly show the rules of QP often directly contradict the rules of regular physics. My point is not that X is being proved by use of QP, just that the rules of regular physics are not constant and absolute in all situations, and if the rules of physics are not absolute you cannot use them as proof of the non-existance of something - certainly not until you've worked out where, why and how the inconsistencies come about.[/b][/quote] So what you're saying to me is that based on the fact the rules aren't solid in some situations, everything could very well still be real? Like, well, the invisible pink unicorn? For the same reason, you cannot exlude them from an argument if you want to use the rules of physics as your base of logic, which is what Tsen did. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE What spirits? [/b] for the purposes of my post, spirits = ghosts[/quot[/b][/quote] Okay. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE This argument is fast rolling to being the normal \"I have proof. Except you can't see it with any methods of perception we have!\" argument.[/b] I'm not saying I have proof of anything, I'm not even saying that there is something there to prove the existnce of, just that Tsen's argument has some holes in it. You can't prove the non-existence of something simply by an absence of proof, just as you can't prove the presence of something by the lack of contradictory evidence.[/b][/quote] I know, I never indeed say you had any proof or anything like that, but it is what the argument would end up being, I expect. I think there was some argument exactly like this once before (the argument we are having now, about perception blah blah). I'll see if I can find it later and let it do the arguing for me instead of me trying to talk about something I don't really have enough knowledge in to hold my own. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE Or rely on dodgy photos or \"experiences\". That just isn't good enough. It's just like the invisible pink unicorn (blessed be her hooves). She's invisible. She's pink. But she's defintely there man, because she's got just as much reliable evidence as ghosts so she's true. She flies too![/b] I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm not trying to prove the existence of anything, quite the opposite. I'm trying to demonstrate that (despite all the anecdotal evidence and logical theories in favour of both sides of the argument) there is no absolute proof either way, and therefore opinions on the existence of something, or otherwise, are simply opinions and nothing more. If you feel you have a sound method for absolutely proving the non-existance of something then please share it, but I've not heard one theory yet that doesn't rely on some unprovable assumptions, leaving gaping holes in the argument.[/b][/quote] I'm not sure about that. Most of what you've said sounds reasonable to me, but this last bit sounds wrong to me somewhere. Everything is a opinon and there is no cold fact? I suppose there is a probability of 1 in several hundred thousand billion (estimate, don't quote me on that ) that a pink unicorn exists, and so you can't say solidly that a pink unicorn (a invisible one, mind) exists, but you can say that it's pretty much true that there is no pink unicorn. You can easily say that anything could exist it's just really unlikely that it does. But I don't see the point in getting into detail like that. You might as well call it "fact" it doesn't. It's better than ploughing through every exception in the world and never getting anyway. If the probability of ghosts existing is 1 in 90000000000 billion, for example (not my opinon), I'd probably say it was fact that there was no such thing as ghosts. I mean you can stick a exception on to the end of everything you say, but...so what? I can't think of the best way to word what I'm trying to say - sure there's no way we can solidly prove anything, but based upon what we've seen in our lives so far i'd be quite comfortable to say gravity will keep working for millions of years to come, etc. We could get into detail about it and say it might stop, but the probability is so low...why bother? You'll have to understand I've never quite got into a argument about stuff like this before so my logic is probably flawed in some way so obvious it would make Einstein cry, but hey, just point it out and leap upon it and i'll continue with my shreds of dignity.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Yogi Bare+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yogi Bare)</div> The immediate exception that springs to mind is gravity. It has no measurable mass and is not detectable in itself, but we know it's real for the obvious reasons. I'm sure there are others.[/b] <!--QuoteBegin-Yogi Bare You can only measure gravity by observing it's effects, there is no way to measure it directly. With a pound of sugar, for instance, there is something physical to measure directly in whatever way you like, not so with gravity. One word: graviton (observed? not quite, but heavily hypothesized. When the new particle accelerator in Europe is finshed we'll have a good shot at detecting it). On another note, indirect measurements can and do prove somethings existence. My point is not that X is being proved by use of QP, just that the rules of regular physics are not constant and absolute in all situations[/b] The rules of physics ARE constant and absolute in all situations. We just don't know and understand them all yet.

[Kaniaz]

^^ bradybaker does this stuff a million times better than me (and stops Einstein from doing 5000RPM's in his grave).

[Aneas]

I grew up with having an entity as a part of my life. Our entity was very physical and could indeed move physical objects. How is it so hard for anyone to conceive that we share our space? I have a thread on here someplace that explains (in my humble opinion) how this is possible. You can't see dark matter or absolutely prove that it does or does not exist, but science is rapidly drawing closer to understanding the "space between". Saying that something doesn't exist because it is not readily identifiable to our senses doesn't prove a thing, nor is doing so a sign of intelligence. I have a project for Bradybaker: find what part of the brain that the conscious observer is located. Not where science thinks it might be, I want absolute certainty as to where it is located. Quantum Physics is opening doors to greater perception of the Self.

[bradybaker]

Well thanks for the assignment there Aneas. Would you be willing to accept the fact that there is no "conscious observer"? That consciousness is only an illusion created by the multiple levels and parallel processing of our powerful pattern analysis machine (the brain)? PS. You don't know much about dark matter do you? Originally posted by Kaniaz and stops Einstein from doing 5000RPM's in his grave Hahah, picturing that makes me laugh.