Thread: Is Dream Sharing Possible?

Originally Posted by PolicemanFox

Stephen Laberge has "proven" the existence of lucid dreaming in laboratory conditions though. Although, I'm not too sure if others have actually replicated this. Suspicious!

Just as an afterthought they have also done studies that have found that the correct areas of the brain light up for dream actions as they do for their real-life counterparts. For example somebody who claims to have dreamt about playing music will have had the area of the brain responsible for music notably engaged on a scan.

Yes, I have read such things. I guess my point is that many folks do not recall their dreams and it is hard for them to understand all this 'dream' talk. A shared experience adds much credence to the science. I can show you on a machine that your heart rate might spike and your eyes may dilate when you see someone you love, but if I have never had the experience, it's much harder to accept. Like those who believed the world was flat - there was no amount of convincing them it was not until maybe - someone took them for a ride and they didn't fall off the cliff!

On the other hand, if they can prove that when we dream of music, a particular part of our brain lights up...then it would certainly be plausible that we could see where one's brain lights up if we experience let's say, a particular memory, and two people share a similar memory, when we dream, if those same areas light up during the same night we could make progress along those lines...of data gathering. But I have no idea how to prove shared dreams. it's far easier to choose an object and then ask a person to view the object from a distance and rate their accuracy because the object is tangible...dreams are not.

Hukif,

Perhaps you should work on that? You could be a pioneer in the field!

I'm afraid if you believe in an entirely physical existence, and in evolution, then shared dreaming is incredibly unlikely.

It is hard to consider a physical mechanism which would result in people many miles apart 'linking' their consciousnesses; however if you believe that there is a non-physical aspect of the universe (which by definition should be impossible, because how would it interact with the physical part) then you can believe anything you want.

Additionally, imagining for a second that there is a physical mechanism which has arisen in humans by which we can link our dreaming consciousnesses; still, shared dreaming gives us absolutely no interspecific advantage to explain its evolution! The remaining possibility in this case is that a physical mechanism of shared dreaming could have arisen randomly and bestows no evolutionary benefit, but this is also ridiculously unlikely.

So really, if you believe in the physical sciences and in evolution, shared dreaming is very very unlikely to actually exist.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

I'm afraid if you believe in an entirely physical existence, and in evolution ... a physical mechanism which would result in people many miles apart 'linking' their consciousnesses;

Have you ever read anything about entanglement and nonlocality?

yeah it's possible. If you share a strong bond with another person and will to do it, it will most likely happen.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

I'm afraid if you believe in an entirely physical existence, and in evolution, then shared dreaming is incredibly unlikely.

It is hard to consider a physical mechanism which would result in people many miles apart 'linking' their consciousnesses; however if you believe that there is a non-physical aspect of the universe (which by definition should be impossible, because how would it interact with the physical part) then you can believe anything you want.

Additionally, imagining for a second that there is a physical mechanism which has arisen in humans by which we can link our dreaming consciousnesses; still, shared dreaming gives us absolutely no interspecific advantage to explain its evolution! The remaining possibility in this case is that a physical mechanism of shared dreaming could have arisen randomly and bestows no evolutionary benefit, but this is also ridiculously unlikely.

So really, if you believe in the physical sciences and in evolution, shared dreaming is very very unlikely to actually exist.

Fair enough.

I used to believe only in the physical: what we touch, taste, hear, see. Today, I still believe in the physical sciences and in evolution while believing some things aren't yet known or explainable. Tomorrow's theories will replace current scientific theories just as the theory/hypothesis of the earth being round replaced the old theory of it being flat. Within each time period, the scientists have been certain their theories were sound until new knowledge revealed incorrect assumptions. But science is limited by the men and women who employ its methods. It's the best we currently have, but it is limited by our own inadequacies.

Originally Posted by Phion

Have you ever read anything about entanglement and nonlocality?

Have you read The Holographic Universe, by chance?

I have had the same exact dream with a friend once. He had woken up while he was at my house and told me that he had a dream that him, his friend and I had been on a roof and his friend jumped off. This was in the middle of the night when he told me this and honestly all I could reply was "I know, I was there." and then I asked him to describe his friend (I had never met him) and I described what his friend looked like and he pulled up a picture and I was spot on.

Also my fiance who quite frankly isn't into dreams or lucid dreams (which is frustrating because she's a natural lucid dreaming while I practice for it lol) had once told me that her and her friend began talking about their dreams and decided that talking about it would mess up what really happened in their mind. So they went into different rooms, wrote down the dream and it turns out they both had the same exact dream and were actively reacting to each other. They were non-lucid though.

This all being said, I believe that there is some way that dream sharing can occur. I just have no idea how in the fuck.

Originally Posted by GoldenLight

Have you read The Holographic Universe, by chance?

I have not, but there are some other great field theory books which I've read. I'm sure I can find it around here somewhere...

Yeah, two people claim they can SD shouldn't be too hard. They meet up a lab in which they are separated into two rooms. Person A is told to tell Person B a message "The wind shines from above" or something else that doesn't make sense. After each night of sleeping Person B would be asked to repeat the message that they were told from person A. If they got the message exactly right, it proves shared dreaming exists. Or, some kind of telepathic communication anyway. Use 100% covered camera surveillance to prevent cheating.

As long as person A and person B can both shared dream constantly or at will and have good recall it shouldn't be too hard. Even if it takes a few nights till they can shared dream. It would have to be something this complicated for absolute proof.

Originally Posted by enak101

Yeah, two people claim they can SD shouldn't be too hard. They meet up a lab in which they are separated into two rooms. Person A is told to tell Person B a message "The wind shines from above" or something else that doesn't make sense. After each night of sleeping Person B would be asked to repeat the message that they were told from person A. If they got the message exactly right, it proves shared dreaming exists. Or, some kind of telepathic communication anyway. Use 100% covered camera surveillance to prevent cheating.

As long as person A and person B can both shared dream constantly or at will and have good recall it shouldn't be too hard. Even if it takes a few nights till they can shared dream. It would have to be something this complicated for absolute proof.

Sounds good - who goes first?

Originally Posted by Phion

Have you ever read anything about entanglement and nonlocality?

I know about entanglement, but I would need a physicist to prove to me that it could plausibly exist between two humans, and a neuroscientist to prove to me that the information encoded in entanglement (if it was somehow working as a consciousness transferrer) could be decoded by the brain.

It really is just clutching at straws though. Why would there exist such an insanely complex mechanism which utilises sub-atomic particles to link two people's consciousnesses? You either have to believe that this consciousness link arose by complete chance (beyond unlikely), or you have to believe in a non-physical aspect to the universe (i.e. be very 'imaginative').

yeah it's possible. If you share a strong bond with another person and will to do it, it will most likely happen.

I don't want to be contentious but you have no evidence for such a claim. That statement is the equivalent of me telling you that a magical hippopotamus named Fred lives at the bottom of my garden.

Originally Posted by PolicemanFox

I don't want to be contentious but you have no evidence for such a claim. That statement is the equivalent of me telling you that a magical hippopotamus named Fred lives at the bottom of my garden.

Originally Posted by PensivePatrick

It really is just clutching at straws though. Why would there exist such an insanely complex mechanism which utilises sub-atomic particles to link two people's consciousnesses? You either have to believe that this consciousness link arose by complete chance (beyond unlikely), or you have to believe in a non-physical aspect to the universe...

I think we might have to agree to disagree or maybe agree that while this idea is currently unproven and untested, there are many things that science cannot adequately explain; however, simply because science cannot explain something does not make the claim true.

Is that acceptable?

Originally Posted by GoldenLight

I think we might have to agree to disagree or maybe agree that while this idea is currently unproven and untested, there are many things that science cannot adequately explain; however, simply because science cannot explain something does not make the claim true.

Is that acceptable?

Absolutely

It's very refreshing how reasonable you are, most people who believe in things science doesn't have an answer for yet are quite argumentative

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Absolutely

It's very refreshing how reasonable you are, most people who believe in things science doesn't have an answer for yet are quite argumentative

If something can not be proven, what is there to argue over? And like I said, I understand where you and others are coming from. I have been there and am still skeptical of things I have not experienced - and even am skeptical of certain things I have experienced. Science is all we have to verify certain hypothesis and if it cannot be shown today it doesn't mean it won't be sometime in the future. And thank you, by the way.