It's ONLY obvious to people who have decided that these things could never be possible. Therefore every time they read a shared dreaming experience they do so WITH BIAS, and shade and color the interpretation of the shared dreaming experience to something that makes them happy.

Can you honestly tell me you don't have a bias against shared dreaming?

From precognitive dreams, to dreaming about real time events as they happen - even if its happening miles away, to dreaming with another person and confirming the events in the morning - there are too many experiences world wide to shut out with out-dated science. At this point the only sane option is to be open minded and honestly admit that maybe our science doesn't understand YET. It's on the verge of understanding the mystery of thoughts and consciousness.
(Don't interpret the caps as shouting; they're just there for potency).

HOW MANY TIMES, juroara, will we have to explain the basics of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to you, or indeed the UTTERMOST BASICS OF RATIONAL THOUGHT?



You lecture me on open-mindedness; just look at the ridiculous manner in which you quoted me. It's quite clear that single sentence assertions are the only things in my posts which actually make it into your consciousness. I provided an entire post of rational argument, and your response is to quote "it's obvious that it's not true" as if that was an honest representation of everything I'd said!

Please follow these simple bullet points. I pray in this blunt form you'll actually try to comprehend some of what I say instead of yet again prescribing to me some kind of ridiculous pre-formed caricature so as not to face up to what I'm really saying. Here we go:

1. I am COMPLETELY open minded to ANYTHING, as long as you can give me some kind of REASON to believe it's true. To believe that something is true without any reason, and even when people give evidence to the contrary, as you would rather do, is in fact THE COMPLETE POLAR OPPOSITE OF OPEN-MINDEDNESS.

The statement above is ALL that science is. Science is not a collection of prejudices. Science is not in fact a static collection of anything at all. Science is NOT a compendium of incontrovertible collected knowledge. To call science 'out-dated' is to show total ignorance of what science is.

SCIENCE: believe whatever there is evidence for. Don't believe what there is no evidence for.

How can you possibly argue with this?

2. Following on from the above, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO PREJUDICES WHICH WOULD CAUSE ME TO DENY SHARED DREAMING.

In fact I would find it incredibly comforting if such a wonderful, inexplicable thing were possible.

3. There is NO EVIDENCE of anybody having shared a dream, despite the fact that it would be EXTREMELY EASY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE in rigorous experimental conditions, and that there is a HUGE MOTIVATION to try to do so.

Just think about it. How many famous scientists do you think only accepted the status quo of previous discoveries and speculated nothing new at all? Name one?

4. As there is no evidence, it follows that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to believe in shared dreaming, unless you have a BIAS to do so.

Correction, it's completely at odds with everything YOU know. Our understanding of thoughts and consciousness is still a work in progress, and there are promising experiments taking place leading to the conclusion that our thoughts are not confined to our brain.
No, juroara, counter correction: science has provided evidence that consciousness functions based on electrical impulses. Science has provided evidence that electrical impulses have no mechanism by which to travel with intent across empty space. Therefore, science implies that shared dreaming can't happen.

What you're saying is analogous to me justifying my ability to levitate via the statement 'it's only at odds with what YOU know about gravity. You're actually ignorant. You can't prove I can't do it'.

No, of course you can't prove it because you're not omniscient, nor is anyone. But if you believed that somebody could levitate based on the above statement you'd be a complete and utter goon. There's no reason to believe it!

As for your final statement: okay. Explain to me (in brief, if you want) a single experiment that has shown that.