Thread: Shared Dreaming Debate

Thanks for your thoughts Sageous. As difficult as it may be, this is more fun than arguing with Masons. I just finished a several hour post on another forum. I make a statement, and in response am asked to justify it with quotes from relevant texts. I do that, its all ignored completely, and some other statement I previously made is pulled out of context and challenged. Its like fighting a hydra. All I was trying to do to start with was to be helpful, to answer someone else's question in an uncontroversial way without contradicting anyone else's beliefs. Then someone finds something to take issue with, and it turns into a quagmire. I decide I'll just stop, but the implication is always that if I don't answer a challenge its because I can't. So when someone else who seems sincere wanders into the forum, I fear I have left a false impression by omission. And I do care about those people, in part because I know what its like to be one. So I try to answer what was asked of me. I hope its done now, for me anyway.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

Thanks for your thoughts Sageous. As difficult as it may be, this is more fun than arguing with Masons. I just finished a several hour post on another forum. I make a statement, and in response am asked to justify it with quotes from relevant texts. I do that, its all ignored completely, and some other statement I previously made is pulled out of context and challenged. Its like fighting a hydra. All I was trying to do to start with was to be helpful, to answer someone else's question in an uncontroversial way without contradicting anyone else's beliefs. Then someone finds something to take issue with, and it turns into a quagmire. I decide I'll just stop, but the implication is always that if I don't answer a challenge its because I can't. So when someone else who seems sincere wanders into the forum, I fear I have left a false impression by omission. And I do care about those people, in part because I know what its like to be one. So I try to answer what was asked of me. I hope its done now, for me anyway.

I hope so, too. I think that if you finally throw up your hands and walk quietly away, it is not your problem if your "opponents" feel you've failed.. Let them think that, and if they reinforce their inadequacy with such pettiness, consider that you've done a good thing by making them briefly happier, if no wiser.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I hope so, too. I think that if you finally throw up your hands and walk quietly away, it is not your problem if your "opponents" feel you've failed.

To clarify....Its not what the opponents think that I'm concerned about. I consider the doctrine they're pushing to be life-destroying, and since I half-wrecked mine just from the three or so years that I took it seriously (careers are fragile things), I think I owe it to other more honest readers to share what I can see from where I am now. Someone should have done the same for me. And as the sole person doing this, apparently, I think my intellectual credibility is worth something, hence the most recent exchange. But yeah, other than that I agree.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

Its like fighting a hydra.

XD hahaha Shadowofwind I have to thank you for that, perfect explanation

If shared dreaming exists then it can be proven. It's yet to be currently, so at this moment I do not believe it exists. I am skeptical of its existence for the same reason I'm skeptical of big foot sightings, alien abductions, ghost hauntings, and being possessed by demons and demonic spirits. Despite the number of people claiming these things exist or that they know what they saw or experienced, the human mind has been know to be unreliable, especially in such situations as these in which no evidence supporting the claims can be presented. You cannot go by anecdotal evidence because the mind is prone to error, be it in perception or in memory. Studies have been done showing how crime witnesses can be led to remember false information when, unbeknownst to them, a false witness to the crime under speculation purposefully "remembers" false information concerning the crime aloud, with disturbing potency. So not only are memories unreliable, but perceptions themselves can be due to hallucinations and delusions, or if intense emotions are experienced during an event.

So, people who see UFOs and big foot, ghosts, or are abducted may full well believe what they say they experienced, but that does not make these beliefs true. The brain, especially in a sleeping state, can make you believe things that are not true or are impossible (many people experience false memories in dreams). A schizophrenic who believes there is a mass conspiracy to destroy the human race and he/she is the only one that can stop it "knows" that this delusion is true, yet it isn't.

The reason you need to use a password experiment is because false positives can arise out of mere coincidence. The people happen to have dreams about similar things, but this is not evidence that they shared dreams because there are other variables still at play. Give the dreamers a predeterminer password to share and recount after waking and this eliminates a lot of those variables. The possibility of coincidence still exists, but that's nothing multiple trials of this experiment wouldn't take care of.

Originally Posted by snoop

If shared dreaming exists then it can be proven.

It's yet to be currently, so at this moment I do not believe it exists. I am skeptical of its existence for the same reason I'm skeptical of big foot sightings, alien abductions, ghost hauntings, and being possessed by demons and demonic spirits. Despite the number of people claiming these things exist or that they know what they saw or experienced, the human mind has been know to be unreliable, especially in such situations as these in which no evidence supporting the claims can be presented.

You cannot go by anecdotal evidence because the mind is prone to error, be it in perception or in memory. Studies have been done showing how crime witnesses can be led to remember false information when, unbeknownst to them, a false witness to the crime under speculation purposefully "remembers" false information concerning the crime aloud, with disturbing potency. So not only are memories unreliable, but perceptions themselves can be due to hallucinations and delusions, or if intense emotions are experienced during an event.

So, people who see UFOs and big foot, ghosts, or are abducted may full well believe what they say they experienced, but that does not make these beliefs true. The brain, especially in a sleeping state, can make you believe things that are not true or are impossible (many people experience false memories in dreams). A schizophrenic who believes there is a mass conspiracy to destroy the human race and he/she is the only one that can stop it "knows" that this delusion is true, yet it isn't.

The reason you need to use a password experiment is because false positives can arise out of mere coincidence. The people happen to have dreams about similar things, but this is not evidence that they shared dreams because there are other variables still at play. Give the dreamers a predeterminer password to share and recount after waking and this eliminates a lot of those variables. The possibility of coincidence still exists, but that's nothing multiple trials of this experiment wouldn't take care of.

Dear Snoop, Gills and folk of like mind

I think that shared dreaming has been proven over and over and over under rigorous scientific conditions. Robert L Van de Castle and his friends have been diligently pursuing this for many decades. Robert L Van de Castle is 84 now. He gives his contact details in that paper I am transcribing slowly in this thread:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f19/what-y...oughts-131453/

Here are his contact details as published on his amazing paper:

Corresponding address:
Robert L. Van de Castle
Professor Emeritus
University of Virginia Medical Center,
Charlottesville, VA, USA

Email: [email protected]

He is of cause an extraordinarily busy man. It might be easier to attend the pdc and chat on-line to him there about shared-dreaming.

Originally Posted by debrajane

Dear Snoop, Gills and folk of like mind

I think that shared dreaming has been proven over and over and over under rigorous scientific conditions.

That is a very, very stupid thing to say. It hasn't been "proven" even once by anyone, much less tested under "rigorous scientific conditions."

I don't care about your obsession with Robert L. Van de Castle, or his writings. We need the following:

1.) Dreamers isolated, so they cannot physically see/hear each other.
2.) One simple password. (ex: Windows98, debrajane, Pillow99, etc.)
3.) Observation and analysis.

End of story.

Originally Posted by Gills

That is a very, very stupid thing to say. It hasn't been "proven" even once by anyone, much less tested under "rigorous scientific conditions."

I don't care about your obsession with Robert L. Van de Castle, or his writings. We need the following:

1.) Dreamers isolated, so they cannot physically see/hear each other.
2.) One simple password. (ex: Windows98, debrajane, Pillow99, etc.)
3.) Observation and analysis.

End of story.

It's 7:02 am here and I just woke with the image of a man taking a large pet crocodile for a walk through a jungle, on a lead, like a dog. Got to put it in dream journal and pasword thread later.

Uhhhh

Just recon that an 84 year old researcher like Van de Castle would be happy to let you know, Gills, where in the world (and when) your pasword experiment had been done and what the results were.

or

How you could get your hypothesis tested in a university under rigorouse scientific conditions. The IASD do that. They give out grants ($$$) to encourage and support intrepid folk, (like you and snoop) to get down and Do It.

Originally Posted by snoop

The reason you need to use a password experiment is because false positives can arise out of mere coincidence. The people happen to have dreams about similar things, but this is not evidence that they shared dreams because there are other variables still at play. Give the dreamers a predeterminer password to share and recount after waking and this eliminates a lot of those variables. The possibility of coincidence still exists, but that's nothing multiple trials of this experiment wouldn't take care of.

Well said. And the fact that in a password sharing experiment you'll have -wrong- guesses makes shared dreaming a weak tool for communication. We're supposed to (in theory) be able to have the equivalent of live video feeds broadcasting and rebroadcasting around the world directly from one brain to another with shared dreaming; instead we can't even get a simple one-word transfer with any amount of reliability.

Hi Mindraker

Originally Posted by Mindraker

Well said. And the fact that in a password sharing experiment you'll have -wrong- guesses makes shared dreaming a weak tool for communication.

We're supposed to (in theory) be able to have the equivalent of live video feeds broadcasting and rebroadcasting around the world directly from one brain to another with shared dreaming;

instead we can't even get a simple one-word transfer with any amount of reliability.

That's because "we" are working from the wrong metaphore (IMO).

"We" are not many individuals where shared dreaming and all other dream psi happens.

Deep within-inside we are one being.

Got to sink into the moment through the life-force (the heartbeat and breathing). The mind empties of individual thought and we merge.

We merge into the Matrix, the Eternal Beloved.

And the rest is history.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

Well said. And the fact that in a password sharing experiment you'll have -wrong- guesses makes shared dreaming a weak tool for communication. We're supposed to (in theory) be able to have the equivalent of live video feeds broadcasting and rebroadcasting around the world directly from one brain to another with shared dreaming; instead we can't even get a simple one-word transfer with any amount of reliability.

You have it backwards. The fact that there are wrong guesses in these experiments doesn't make shared dreaming a weak tool for communication. It just shows the lack of evidence for the existence of shared dreaming.

This thread is immortal, lol...Im gonna try to create a personal synopsis of my thought thus far...

I've just finished reading a book called Mavericks of the Mind and there was a metaphor for consciousness I really enjoyed. One of the people in the book describe the individual as a snowflake. They are reasonably unique, separate, and essentially isolated from other snowflakes. Of course, there is interaction between snowflakes but they usually entails occupying near space physically. There is also interaction between snowflakes due to wind. The movement of a snowflake by the wind will be affected by the presence of the other snowflakes.
So we have snowflakes. Then the snowflake falls into the ocean. At this point, the snowflake ceases to exist and it becomes the ocean. We as humans contain about a trillion cells yet we identify our whole body as one. This is the same idea. All the cells in the body have certain ways of communication but there are always paths by which information is transferred.
If you look at the brain, these paths are created through absorbing information. The more you absorb the same information, the deeper the neural pathways become and habit is formed.
So now we have the ocean. We see it as one, yet it is made of an unbelievable amount of water molecules. Of course, the only reason all of these things come together is because of the opposing forces in nature.

Originally Posted by NASA

there are four known forces:

1. Gravity - This force acts between all mass in the universe and it has infinite range.

2. Electromagnetic - This acts between electrically charged particles. Electricity, magnetism, and light are all produced by this force and it also has infinite range.

3. The Strong Force - This force binds neutrons and protons together in the cores of atoms and is a short range force.

4. Weak Force - This causes Beta decay (the conversion of a neutron to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino) and various particles (the "strange" ones) are formed by strong interactions but decay via weak interactions (that's what's strange about "strangeness"). Like the strong force, the weak force is also short range.

Many people thought lucid dreaming was impossible before Stephen Laberge proved through empirical research and with the help of observational technology. There are standards of proof in our society and thats fine but there are different ways to find out if something is possible. When scientists are thinking of experimenting with something, they build models. This begins with hypothesis, and data collection. Well, there can be no hypothesis or data collection if one is waiting for someone else to prove their idea.
What we are able to do here is create hypothesis and test them using empirical data collection. We have mounds of dream journal material and years upon years of dreaming expertise all contained on this website. Its brilliant! We all come together to interpret our experience without even trying.

So here are some things I have discovered. They are things that already exist but people take them for granted most of the time.

- The vast majority of what we experience is unconscious
- The truth of our experience is already uncovered, it is our responsibility to consciously interpret what has been unconsciously known all along. In a sense, we are digging for hidden treasure.
- Our past experience dictates what we believe will happen in the future.
- True experience is found in the present moment.

So my conclusion? Most of us have our heads up our asses.

How does all this apply to shared dreaming?
Well, we could talk about what people think about what it may be. We could discuss what we have seen so far. And we can attempt the experience ourselves and make a personal decision.
Science and the scientific method arose from a human mind. This form of truth finding is instinctive in all of us. Cultural conditioning and emotional stagnation is usually the cause of all the excess bullshit.
Personally, I like talking about all present, past, and future possibilities. That is our ability, why would I choose not to use the tools with which nature has gifted me?
I am still on the fence about shared dreaming. On the probability scale, it seems likely. That scale going from most likely, more than likely, likely, less than likely, and least likely. Basically, it could go either way for me.
At the end of the day, people who want scientific evidence are just asking us to use external tools for proof. Well, I dont need to prove my experience to anyone, but at the same time it would be nice to prove that shared dreaming is real.
All my head keeps saying is, Ive experience things that seem much deeper than shared dreaming but Ive never put any effort into shared dreaming. I think mostly because in order to practice shared dreaming properly, it requires an understanding of fear and the ability to share your mind with someone despite the fear that is bound to be there somewhere.

So now I am going to try myself to share my dream. Ive never been good at sharing so it will be a big step. We all live in a culture of fear and its our responsibility to do what we can to change that. Shared dreaming by that account would be something to be avoided and even made punishable. Shared spiritual experience has never been very high on the priority list in western society. We all just sit and listen to someone drone on about fantasy and dreams without actually experiencing anything.

anyways, we are discovering ever deepening connectivity in the physical world. Levels of infinitesimal reality are becoming a part of everyday discussions which people may never have imagined. The likelihood that shared dreaming would work between people seems the same likelihood that someone who does not know the native tongue of a land would be understood by the native people.
We must look through the lens of our more subtle abilities of communication.

^^ Wouldn't its non-existence make dream-sharing a pretty weak tool for communication?

... just saying ...

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ Wouldn't its non-existence make dream-sharing a pretty weak tool for communication?

... just saying ...

Yes it would, but wording it that way is a bit strange to me. It'd be like saying that Santa Claus is a bad sleigh driver because he doesn't exist.

^^ I was just kidding, Gills. Relax.

I personally don't think a password test would be sufficient. And its definitely not the only way to conclusively prove that people can communicate via dreams.

Originally Posted by Chimpertainment

I personally don't think a password test would be sufficient. And its definitely not the only way to conclusively prove that people can communicate via dreams.

I agree, but as of yet we can't even get the believers to do this test, let alone successfully or a more rigorous and precise test. At best so far it's "I know what I experienced" and "we both dreamed of a dog, ergo shared dreaming exists!!!".

Originally Posted by snoop

I agree, but as of yet we can't even get the believers to do this test, let alone successfully or a more rigorous and precise test. At best so far it's "I know what I experienced" and "we both dreamed of a dog, ergo shared dreaming exists!!!".

Got a few more days on the password sharing experiment, but the participation has pretty much ended. I'll start wrapping it up.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

Got a few more days on the password sharing experiment, but the participation has pretty much ended. I'll start wrapping it up.

I really wanted to particapate but everysingle LD I tried (About 8 in total) I got no password of any kind, something would always go wrong and I didn't want to just keep blindly guessing I wanted to post a definite result.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I really wanted to particapate but everysingle LD I tried (About 8 in total) I got no password of any kind, something would always go wrong and I didn't want to just keep blindly guessing I wanted to post a definite result.

Thanks for letting me know... you see... it's even stuff like "participating but having no results" that is even scientifically significant. (At least, for me.) Thank you for having participated.

Originally Posted by Chimpertainment

I personally don't think a password test would be sufficient. And its definitely not the only way to conclusively prove that people can communicate via dreams.

I keep hearing this again and again, and I think it's just a lame excuse not to do the experiment.

I mean come on... how the hell would the password test not be sufficient!?

It would be the PERFECT test. There is absolutely no way to cheat, and the results would be undeniable proof of a psi-connection between the two subjects.

Originally Posted by Gills

I keep hearing this again and again, and I think it's just a lame excuse not to do the experiment.

I mean come on... how the hell would the password test not be sufficient!?

It would be the PERFECT test. There is absolutely no way to cheat, and the results would be undeniable proof of a psi-connection between the two subjects.

It's an opinion, it's not stopping anyone from still performing the test including himself. He is obviously indicated that our limited knowledge on the subject would indicate that shared dreaming might operate differently than would seem apparent.

Originally Posted by Gills

I keep hearing this again and again, and I think it's just a lame excuse not to do the experiment.

I mean come on... how the hell would the password test not be sufficient!?

It would be the PERFECT test. There is absolutely no way to cheat, and the results would be undeniable proof of a psi-connection between the two subjects.

If it works you have rock solid proof of shared dreaming. If it doesn't work, as I think is highly likely, then you have proof that shared dreaming, if it exists, can't easily be controlled in a manner that makes that test work.

If you want proof of the kind of shared dreaming that real people who we know actually claim to be able to do, and not proof of a hypothetical shared dreaming that nobody claims to be able to do, then I think you need to find a more appropriate test.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

If it works you have rock solid proof of shared dreaming.

Correct.

If it doesn't work, as I think is highly likely, then you have proof that shared dreaming, if it exists, can't easily be controlled in a manner that makes that test work.

How you would arrive at such a ridiculous and irrational conclusion is beyond me. What you are doing right now is almost like arguing from silence. To you, the absence of evidence for shared dreaming shows you that it exists, but isn't "testable".

It's funny, because I brought this up several weeks ago. I noticed a strong pattern with people claiming that shared dreaming can't be studied (for some odd reason). Dreams are being shared, information is being transferred, minds are being connected, yet no study will be able to show evidence of this?

Bullcrap.

If you want proof of the kind of shared dreaming that real people who we know actually claim to be able to do, and not proof of a hypothetical shared dreaming that nobody claims to be able to do, then I think you need to find a more appropriate test.

The study I proposed is completely foolproof, and if I had the tools/resources that are necessary, I wouldn't hesitate to do it.

Until we have something like that, you can believe whatever you want, but please don't expect others to take your word for it.