Thread: Inception- Is it possible?

Oh right ok. I've been presuming shared dreams = shared lucid dreams, in my case.

I don't see how that matters. I was presuming they'd be lucid too. But you don't need to prove a shared lucid dream is lucid in order to prove that it's shared.

Assuming they're all negative is not how science works either. You shouldn't assume a conclusion about something without knowing what has happened. Do you acknowledge what I said in my previous post? There have been some complementary instances, just listen to peoples experiences with each other and it is obvious. Better than a pen and paper.

No, that is how science works. Until somebody provides evidence for an extraordinary claim, you have no reason to believe it.

I don't feel like repeating myself fully all over again, but basically the lack of any positive experiments for shared dreaming, when there is such high incentive to produce one, and it is so easy, is extremely hard to reconcile with the idea that it's possible.

Anecdotal evidence in this case is totally useless, because it's so easy to imagine how two people could fool themselves into thinking something is a shared dream. If they both preordained to meet each other at some location, and then both had dreams in which they did so, their reaction would probably to be to tell everybody that they'd had a shared dream. However they'd have no way of knowing if this was actually a shared mental environment, or if they were both just having separate dreams about the same thing (which wouldn't be surprising at all as they'd preplanned it). That's why they have to share some kind of information. This isn't excessive, it's just basic damn standards of rigour which any sane person would ask for.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see how that matters. I was presuming they'd be lucid too. But you don't need to prove a shared lucid dream is lucid in order to prove that it's shared.

That's kind of beside the point but whatever.

No, that is how science works. Until somebody provides evidence for an extraordinary claim, you have no reason to believe it.

Yes, but having lack of a reason is not the same as assuming a negative reason, which is bias. What you said here is fine, but not what you said before.

I don't feel like repeating myself fully all over again, but basically the lack of any positive experiments for shared dreaming, when there is such high incentive to produce one, and it is so easy, is extremely hard to reconcile with the idea that it's possible.

What do you mean "and it is so easy"?

Anecdotal evidence in this case is totally useless, because it's so easy to imagine how two people could fool themselves into thinking something is a shared dream. If they both preordained to meet each other at some location, and then both had dreams in which they did so, their reaction would probably to be to tell everybody that they'd had a shared dream. However they'd have no way of knowing if this was actually a shared mental environment, or if they were both just having separate dreams about the same thing (which wouldn't be surprising at all as they'd preplanned it). That's why they have to share some kind of information. This isn't excessive, it's just basic damn standards of rigour which any sane person would ask for.

Remember, I am talking about OBE's in this instance. We both agree that evidence is important, but you seem to be ignoring that there have already been positive correlations between personal experiences, and as far as I know, they're not exactly suggestible by predefined ideas or goals.

E.g. Let's say you agree to travel to a destination with another friend via OBE. Some time after meeting and traveling together, you notice that your mate is limping at some point and is walking slower. This was not specified as part of the deal, but it is not wrong either. Afterward and unasked, your friend spontaneously confirms it is true that she was limping and says that she found it hard to walk. How is this suggestible beforehand? There are only two things to remember: 1. Staying with a certain person and 2., traveling to a location together. They can go further to the destination and find out something; collect information. Easy. Afterward, they can even talk about everything that happened, in 'real life'. It is then very easy to spot how accurate the whole mission was, and understand how unlikely this was to be independent program or imagining. If this was all somehow a hallucination, you would need more evidence to support that instead, because the depth of correlation is enough to conclude that the experiences were actually not separate; the experiences were shared via out of body.