I want to learn Invading Dream

[UdIe]

Hello everyone, thanks for reading my post. I want to learn Dream Invasion. Like I want to invade other people's dream and want to telepathically communicate with them, is there anyone who will teach me, step by step, how invade someone else's dream.

[AstralMango]

Er - I don't know much about that sort of stuff, but it sounds like 'shared dreaming' and there's a whole thread dedicated to this: http://www.dreamviews.com/internatio...ut-thread.html

[Sibyline]

Moved to Beyond Dreaming

[shadowofwind]

Anything else you want to learn while you're at it? Psychic intellectual property theft? Astral rape? Some altruistic person will be sure to want to help you.

[kilham]

Anything else you want to learn while you're at it? Psychic intellectual property theft? Astral rape? Some altruistic person will be sure to want to help you.

[TwitchLucidity]

Anything else you want to learn while you're at it? Psychic intellectual property theft? Astral rape? Some altruistic person will be sure to want to help you. Oh my gosh, haha thanks for making my day Your pretty ignorant Udie. Please tell me when you say Dream Invasion you just mean shared dreaming and not scarring someone, because if you did I would be glad to slap you

[UdIe]

Oh my gosh, haha thanks for making my day Your pretty ignorant Udie. Please tell me when you say Dream Invasion you just mean shared dreaming and not scarring someone, because if you did I would be glad to slap you bro who u replying on who's comment, u better double check

[gab]

Now now, let's play nice. Instead of name-calling, why don't we take this opportunity to educate everybody who stumbles upon this tread, what's the difference and why one is not so good and the other one is ok.

[TwitchLucidity]

Okay, yeah peace. The point is Udle is dream invasion is wrong, but if you really want to learn it their is sure to be someone who will love to teach you!

[Mzzkc]

They won't be doing it over public channels though, if at all.

[TwitchLucidity]

They won't be doing it over public channels though, if at all. What do you mean? EDIT: Oh wait, I know what you mean.

[mowglycdb]

If you want to do something that's morally questionable, we would like to know WHY you want to learn how to invade others peoples dreams, so yeah Why do you want to invade other people's dreams?

[Ginsan]

You guys are all doing it wrong. We should be asking our friend UdIe something much more interesting. How did he get to the conclusion that dream invasion is possible?

[Mzzkc]

You guys are all doing it wrong. We should be asking our friend UdIe something much more interesting. How did he get to the conclusion that dream invasion is possible? Hmmm? Obviously, UdIe read about it on the internet and was convinced by intrepid oneironauts of mystique and valor that such a feat must be possible, for they themselves had experienced it . Hardly an interesting or novel tale.

[StephL]

While ranting on in the religion subforum - snoop asked, why I wouldn't engage in topics like this one - so here I am - not meant to be condescending - I just really believe, a bit of illumination could so some good around the place. You guys are all doing it wrong. We should be asking our friend UdIe something much more interesting. How did he get to the conclusion that dream invasion is possible? Exactely. Neither is dream-sharing possible. Like usual – I am well aware, I can't prove a negative – so I can’t prove that – but really – would you believe anything else, less desirable, if the situation would look equivalent? So many people are trying it, and nothing worth any notice ever came of it. A realistic person would take the lack of valid evidence in consideration - the fact that it is well known, that the human mind can conjure up all sorts of subjective experiences - we should definitively know this as LDers - that relying on one's subjective feeling is not a good idea. People also seem to adapt their experiences, even if far removed, to fit into pre-existing schemata - and tada - everybody feels validated. Ultimately there is always a cryptic medium involved, through which some completely unknown energy-form would travel to transmit the needed information. Physicists would be seriously delighted, if one of those supposed psychic persons would reveal the pass to a Noble Prize and a new field of physics to them. Nope – not happening. What is also not happening, is that a pair of sharing dreamers gets the 1.000.000 Dollars, that the Randi-challenge promises to give out for water-tight proof. Wishful thinking is the source of faith. Then there (are) were people making stuff up in order to simply impress others and become interesting. Some want for make money with books and whatnot and put sensationalist stuff out - goes for Castaneda as well. And then there are the faithful people experiencing things, which seem vaguely indicative of what they really, really wish they could do - it being soo fascinating. That’s where the whole excitement comes from. Oh – and Inception of course and any other stuff, made mystical for driving sales up, and cater to the people who love to shudder a bit and keep their superstitions cosily at heart - who wants to die after all?! gaah.gif (Got a bit of a temperament - can type myself into serious exasperation at times .. soz) Now now, let's play nice. Instead of name-calling, why don't we take this opportunity to educate everybody who stumbles upon this tread, what's the difference and why one is not so good and the other one is ok. How could there be a difference? If it was possible to connect your mind from within the lucid dream on purpose – why shouldn’t it be possible to invade somebody’s dream? It’s not as if there was any sort of manual how to do it, and security-measures being taken – nope – people seem to believe they can do it just like that – no problem. Just to make sure – I believe, none of them are possible – and that on solid ground. I could imagine, that it will actually one day be possible – but with the help of technology – something to really enable a connection from mind to mind – the old-fashioned way with electricity and radio or cables or whatnot – not wafting exotic yet to be found energy waves of some arcane frequency – or however the latest fad has it. People supposedly show up in other people's dreams unexpectedly – if somebody was proficient in LDing and in actual "magic" - like The Cusp and others seem to have claimed in the past - piece of cake - same mechanism. Another argument, why it's not bloody likely – we would see the fallout from that otherwise. If it was possible – we’d see powertrips being played out and obviously, wouldn’t you think? Seems people assume, only nice people could share dreams, and that the ether in some way would protect the nice lucid dreamers from the inevitable harm, that would follow, should their feats really be attainable. Isn’t it interesting, how once the people claiming to do such feats quit doing that, or even quit posting – nobody seems to share dreams anymore – activity is way down in that department - so what is more likely - people bathing in other people's admiration - or - *insert insanity of the recent past*. Seems in the moment, the willing members don’t get lucid in the first place. Shame that, sort of – or is there somebody willing to claim, they actively share dreams at the moment? Come on everybody – a bit more sceptical thinking never hurts – and intellectual honesty is a virtue in my eyes – why delude oneself, even while deep down having the nagging feeling, that that’s what it is anyway?

[StephL]

And for Sageous - I have a theory, as to what those special DCs could be, of whom you and others report - and absolutely credibly. The ones with the mind of their own. Been conversing with Linkzelda about the tulpa concept, and I could imagine, that within your extended LDs over decades - you could have created truly autonomous thoughtforms - sentient from their perspective and not controllable by your consciousness. But dwelling in your brain and specifically in your lucid dreaming mind. It seems possible to do something like this on purpose - even to take the thought-form into waking life and hallucinate it. Something not at all like schizophrenia - but rather voluntarily induced multiple personality disorder without the "dis". Which was a bit of a fashion diagnosis in the 80s/90s, and it's hardly ever being diagnosed these days. Seems something like it can also be "in order" and quite fascinating indeed. I've been daydreaming about sharing my mind with an AI, upon coming across it in books .. Anyway - maybe during your long and surely narrative-rich LDs - spontaneous tulpas could have emerged - and that would be them. Maybe it could go faster, too. You - but separated from you - an "other" - and whole and going a very different path - and worth nurturing, maybe.

[kadie]

Yeah, seriously, its about as crazy as believing in God right? Yet people claim to have moments when something so profound happens and they attribute it to God. Now I dont believe in a magic man in the sky, but I do believe in energy, either in a physical form or as many around here experience as thought form. I do know that when I was new here and getting to know a few people, I had a few very distinct feelings of my meditations being "invaded" by persons unknown. At that time, I did not know that some here were into that kind of thing. I'm skeptical about the whole dream sharing via lucid dreaming thing but that does not stop me from giving it a try. I just try to be a good sport and honestly post what I experience without attempting to attribute it to something or someone or some magical experience. Nothing wrong with trying something new in my book.

[Sageous]

And for Sageous - Hey now! I'm not even on this thread! As a little aside, here's a funny thing: I'm not a fan of shared-dreaming, or dream invasion for that matter; I never was -- I have to deal with enough people in waking life, why do the same in dreams? I've been fairly skeptical of it far more often than fairly supportive of it, I think. I even went on about it in my long dead Treatise on Proof thread (I remember taking a good bruising on that thread, too, daring people to question their own memories!). Yet I find myself writing about the ersatz phenomena in one form or another pretty regularly (i.e., they are featured prominently in all my books), and I ponder their potential nature even more. I often ask myself about this fascination. I guess it's because if shared dreaming were possible, a whole lot of other things would be as well (as you already mentioned), and that is very exciting to me. It is fun to dream, and invigorating to imagine that there is an as yet undiscovered metaphysics created solely by our dreaming minds... and explaining those ever-accumulating unexplainable moments! I have a theory, as to what those special DCs could be, of whom you and others report - and absolutely credibly. The ones with the mind of their own. Been conversing with Linkzelda about the tulpa concept, and I could imagine, that within your extended LDs over decades - you could have created truly autonomous thoughtforms - sentient from their perspective and not controllable by your consciousness. But dwelling in your brain and specifically in your lucid dreaming mind. I've been daydreaming about sharing my mind with an AI, upon coming across it in books .. Anyway - maybe during your long and surely narrative-rich LDs - spontaneous tulpas could have emerged - and that would be them. Maybe it could go faster, too. You - but separated from you - an "other" - and whole and going a very different path - and worth nurturing, maybe. That is an interesting theory, and it certainly makes more sense than physics-defying concepts like projected thought energy to explain the strange encounters. I'm not sure I've managed to create unique, recurring, and sentient DC's; but then I wouldn't be, would I? That would explain the strange DC's confusion about their origins as well (I have asked, many times), because if they exist only in my dreams, they very well could do so only in the "Here & Now" confines of NLD schemata. Curious; I'll have to give it some thought. Not too much though, because the thought of a bunch of sentient strangers just, well, living, in my mind is more than a little unsettling. Great rant(s) BTW, Steph, you should visit these magical realms more often; your skepticism is a welcome and vital tonic!

[StephL]

smile.gif Ah - I guessed, you'd take a peek in here, Sageous! Everything is allowed in art - I fully agree, and deeply enjoy it - and the more imagination-invigoration - the better! I have a foible for science fiction and also read fantasy quite often - lots of what ifs and I love it. Thank you for considering my "theory" about DCs with a mind of their own! If yours are not recurrent and don't stay coherent - I don't think, you had to worry about housing sentient beings, who have a reality beyond the here and now of the dream. If somebody like this shows up out of the blue - she has probably just calved away from your mind acutely and comes back in the fold, once the dream is over - following my "theory". I am yet to experience something like that - no wonder as a bloody novice - I couldn't even discern them, since I am not (yet?) always able to manipulate my DCs. Linkzelda and his day-time tulpas - truly fascinating, but I quite strongly shy away from taking on such a project. Maybe I'll try to cultivate a more or less consistent and such familiar dream character - a non-metaphysical dream-guide, though. If you would do that properly and with a lot of attention to it - I guess, you'd end up creating a dream-time tulpa. But taking it into the waking mind - or better split it out in waking as well - it frightens me. Thank you again for motivating me to chime in in such topics - but I'm well aware how it could be seen as killjoying at best and polemics or even attacking at worst as well. But I have a little appetite for ranting, lately ..redface.gif

[Mzzkc]

Accidentally lost a bunch of text while gathering links to sources, so this will be quick... There have been notable reports beyond the confines of Dreamviews which have demonstrated mutual/shared dreaming or--at the very least--something resembling the phenomena. I recommend looking into the relevant proceedings and publications of the IASD, and checking a Scholarly database for an interesting case study published in the Journal of Psychology (Volume 128, Issue 2, 1994; pgs 133-147) titled "Dream Sharing: A Case Study" (authors W. Jackson Davis & Marcos Frank). As an aside: within Dreamviews itself, there once existed a select few members of exceptional skill and rapport who've demonstrated such phenomena. But again--results and methods were never shared through public channels. Primarily because of threads like this, I imagine.

[StephL]

There have been notable reports beyond the confines of Dreamviews which have demonstrated mutual/shared dreaming or--at the very least--something resembling the phenomena. I recommend looking into the relevant proceedings and publications of the IASD, and checking a Scholarly database for an interesting case study published in the Journal of Psychology (Volume 128, Issue 2, 1994; pgs 133-147) titled "Dream Sharing: A Case Study" (authors W. Jackson Davis & Marcos Frank). I did look into the IASD repeatedly, and kept respectfully quiet. Show me one example, which would convince me, if the experiment would have been conducted seriously and under controlled conditions. No real life contact between sharers for a while beforehand for example, and not using content overlap, but information transfer - both of which your psychology reference lacks. Even if it wasn't completely void of validity to take reports on an internet forum as evidence - the actual examples really didn't convince me. Did I overlook the ones, where I actually had to start arguing? As to that case study - it costs 30 Euro to acquire, and unless I see it - all I have is this: Abstract Dream reports were tape recorded each morning independently for 10 weeks by both members of an adult heterosexual couple who alleged they regularly shared dreams. The transcribed reports were evaluated blind by 12 trained analysts using quantitative dream-content analysis. The couple had identified 13 pairs of dreams (17% of the sample) as shared. The mean percentage content overlap score of these 13 pairs (39.15%) was significantly greater than that of 80 randomly matched pairs of unshared dreams (5.23%). The content overlap scores of each analyst correlated significantly with those of the unblinded male subject (r = .72). The mean probability that the observed overlap in putatively shared dreams was caused by chance was calculated as 1 in 5 billion. Shared dreams appeared to occur in a distinct temporal cycle of 30–35 days. Content overlap between shared dreams was greatest in three of seven categories; objects, themes, and effect. And what comes to mind, is that the couple lived together, and they simply synchronized their dreams by close daytime contact - which then lead to dream-content overlap in about a third of their dreams, which they themselves selected for analysis. Then - what does male unblinded subject mean? Nobody would claim that dream-content overlap in a couple in close contact would be down to change - so this "impressive" number doesn't say anything without insight into their methods and mathematics. Not convincing. And why content overlap - why not password transfer? I needed to see the actual study, to form an opinion - until then I'm highly sceptical, and I won't pay for it - shame it's not open access. Remember the Randi-challenge? Why did that couple not go ahead and win the 1.000.000 Dollar? As an aside: within Dreamviews itself, there once existed a select few members of exceptional skill and rapport who've demonstrated such phenomena. But again--results and methods were never shared through public channels. Primarily because of threads like this, I imagine. How do you know, this is true? You even say, the salient content wasn't ever publicly available - but then you expect people to believe you? Are you one of them - or how would you know? And no - when I look into the IOSP these days - people struggle to become lucid in the first place - that's why it's quiet in the beyond. I struggle to become lucid as well - so my sincerest sympathies and no harm meant. But if it really would be quiet, because of threads like this one, bringing a bit of common sense and clarity into people's heads - that would actually be quite beneficent on different levels. People could stop wasting their time, trying to hunt down the SDing phantom, which simply doesn't make sense, instead of exploring lucidity for the wonder that it truly is for one. There are more worthwhile things out there to be passionate about!

[DawnEye11]

If dream invading methods came naturally or were taught to people with bad intentions they could use it for bad things. Like making a person have sleepless nights. In order to share a dream the person who wants the dreamer to dream about them has to be good at lucid dreaming. They are most likely to succeed if they have a strong connection with the person. Like if their friends/family or talk about dreams together. If you want to invade random people's dreams it would be hard I think cause you have no target. It'd probably be like sending a messenger bird to the sky with not very good training. You don't know if it will get lost or find an actual target. But distinguishing a real dreamer in a dream from a DC is probably like this. You have to do something that will show its a dreamer but still be in control of your lucidity so you don't effect the dream by your thoughts. I don't know if that's possible, maybe it is but you'd probably need skill in stabilizing the dream. Here's an example of a dreamer action. If in the dream you see something bad happening and there is a person who seems to be more active than the rest.(trying to go through walls,windows,etc). If you see them active and out of all characters their like the focus point of the event; Than that could probably be a hint but it all comes up to knowing the answer to the question "what would a experienced lucid dreamer do, a non experienced dreamer who loses lucidity easily and a DC do? But the thing is your thoughts could effect the dream so figuring out if the person was really there would be hard. Everything written here is based on what I've read about dreaming, share dreaming and my lucid dreams.

[gab]

Now now, let's play nice. Instead of name-calling, why don't we take this opportunity to educate everybody who stumbles upon this tread, what's the difference and why one is not so good and the other one is ok. How could there be a difference? One is done with permission (OK), the other one without (not OK). If done at all.

[Mzzkc]

I'm not going to get into an extended discussion about this. I will, however, address the questions and concerns you've raised. I did look into the IASD repeatedly, and kept respectfully quiet. Show me one example, which would convince me, if the experiment would have been conducted seriously and under controlled conditions. No real life contact between sharers for a while beforehand for example, and not using content overlap, but information transfer - both of which your psychology reference lacks. Could you please define the difference between "information transfer" and "content overlap"? Given the nature of dreams, I would think statistically significant content overlap would be sufficient to show phenomena such as mutual dreaming exists (if not necessarily explaining the mechanism behind it). If you are seeking evidence of telepathy or similar, there are more straightforward experiments which eliminate the inherent variables introduced by the dreaming mind. Regardless, I'll see if I can get a copy of the study I have in mind (not sure it's been published yet). Though you might have to pay for that, too. Even if it wasn't completely void of validity to take reports on an internet forum as evidence - the actual examples really didn't convince me. Did I overlook the ones, where I actually had to start arguing? Probably not. Most of the "evidence" I've seen presented on these forums wouldn't convince me either. And what comes to mind, is that the couple lived together, and they simply synchronized their dreams by close daytime contact - which then lead to dream-content overlap in about a third of their dreams, which they themselves selected for analysis. If I remember the study correctly, they recorded and identified the shared dreams independently of one another (the experiment was a double-blind study, afterall). As for the close contact throughout the day contributing to overlap: this is a valid observation. However, I would think (from my experience sharing [as in communicating with words] dreams with my SO each morning upon waking) such high overlap in somewhat exotic content (they provide a number of transcripts of the dreams in the article) to be rather unusual. Then - what does male unblinded subject mean? At the end of the experiment, they trained the male subject to quantitatively evaluate the content overlap using the same methodology as the other twelve independent, blind analysts. Since he would be able to tell whose dream was whose, on what date they occurred, and the purpose of the experiment, he would be considered an unblind analyst. Nobody would claim that dream-content overlap in a couple in close contact would be down to change - so this "impressive" number doesn't say anything without insight into their methods and mathematics. Not convincing. The math and methods are all presented in the article and have been extensively peer reviewed before publication. And why content overlap - why not password transfer? See my reasoning above for why password transfer at the dream level is wildly unnecessary, inefficient, and impractical. I needed to see the actual study, to form an opinion - until then I'm highly sceptical, and I won't pay for it - shame it's not open access. Go to a local university or library. They'll most probably have a copy there for you to read in the serials section or in their academic database. Remember the Randi-challenge? Why did that couple not go ahead and win the 1.000.000 Dollar? For one, they (as a couple) would have been largely ineligible under the terms of the application: Challenge Application How do you know, this is true? I don't. But along that line of reasoning, how do you know that I or anyone else on this site has had any lucid dreams at all? You even say, the salient content wasn't ever publicly available - but then you expect people to believe you? There are chat logs and other records floating around, but I wouldn't expose their identities out of respect of their privacy. I'll point them towards this thread, and if they choose to comment on the matter, so be it. Are you one of them - or how would you know? Is it difficult to think that someone who's been in the LDing community as long as myself doesn't have a number of friends I met here but now converse with outside these forums/the community? And no - when I look into the IOSP these days - people struggle to become lucid in the first place - that's why it's quiet in the beyond. I struggle to become lucid as well - so my sincerest sympathies and no harm meant. But if it really would be quiet, because of threads like this one, bringing a bit of common sense and clarity into people's heads - that would actually be quite beneficent on different levels. People could stop wasting their time, trying to hunt down the SDing phantom, which simply doesn't make sense, instead of exploring lucidity for the wonder that it truly is for one. There are more worthwhile things out there to be passionate about! And I agree. Folks who can't get lucid regularly shouldn't even be bothering with pursuing shared dreaming (except maybe as an "end-game" motivator) when they already have so much to explore. On the flip side, I'd imagine after a few hundred (or thousand) lucids a person might start seeking something deeper.

[StephL]

Thank you! Great answer! I can imagine a dream-content overlap being impressive enough to convince me, that I wouldn't want direct telepathic communication. I had to see the maths. It's problematic, though, as you said yourself, to study a case with people in such close contact - seems the Randi-challenge agrees there. I'll keep it in mind, though, if I go to the uni-bib, which I'll theoretically had to do anyway in the next months. And once you say, that what you believe, you believe on personal trust - that's fine with me as well. Happy dreaming!