Thread: Don't You Just Wish This Was Possible?

Originally Posted by Mario92

Okay, this is definitely going a bit far. Through quantum physics and the gold foil test, we have a pretty damn good idea of what atoms look like, and how they interact with other atoms to form molecules. If molecules don't exist, then every field of chemistry instantly collapses.

Ya I agree with you on this one. I was comparing the unprovable things like Dream realms and Heaven. The existance of molecules is pretty well founded

Originally Posted by Mario92

Okay, this is definitely going a bit far. Through quantum physics and the gold foil test, we have a pretty damn good idea of what atoms look like, and how they interact with other atoms to form molecules. If molecules don't exist, then every field of chemistry instantly collapses.

If you haven't noticed they're testing this kinda stuff out more than SD.

Originally Posted by SilverBullet

If you haven't noticed they're testing this kinda stuff out more than SD.

I dont understand if that post was meant to defend the existance of molecules or the non-existance

Thats not what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is that molecules do exist, because they were tested.
But most people immediately think shared dreaming is fake and therefore don't test it.

And if you didn't understand, Nomad was being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by Stryke

I dont understand if that post was meant to defend the existance of molecules or the non-existance

I missed the point, too. :/

EDIT: okay, I gotcha now. Yup, as I've stated, just because something hasn't been adequately tested and proven/disproven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

sarcasm can be confusing sometimes...

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

sarcasm can be confusing sometimes...

lol ya that's why I try to never be sarcastic on the internet. You can't hear the tone of what people say through text. On the internet you pretty much have to decide on your own whether or not the someone is being sarcastic, or if their just dumb lol.

I've read through this thread and find the discussion very interesting. But why don't we just stop arguing and do something about it? Let's get testing.

It seems as if it's difficult to prove objectively, but it can be very easily proven to an individual subjectively. The skeptic doesn't post his/her DJ and the shared dreamer explains the dream - high similarity rates would prove shared dreaming to the skeptic, as no one else should know that information. I would be happy to participate in a test like this, but my inability to become lucid means that it would take months for me to prove this to anyone.

Based on the evidence for each case, though, I have to say that I believe in shared dreaming. I haven't experienced it yet (but hope to soon), but judging from the data it seems as if SDing is a real possibility. The study Mzzkc posted coupled with the enormous sea of anecdotal evidence indicate that shared dreaming is real.

I used to be a skeptic, but the vast array of evidence is just too massive. At first I thought WakingNomad and Raven Knight were the same person, but as I saw more and more shared dreamers I eventually came to realize that no one would have time to make that many accounts and repost different versions of the same story. Would anyone spend hours and hours every single day for over two years just to improve his Internet reputation? I don't think so.

If there were two or three people claiming to share dreams on the site, I would agree that they're probably lying/colluding to deceive the site. But do you really think that WakingNomad, Raven Knight, Man of Shred, Walms, TheCusp, Loaf, Kaomea, saltyseedog, Aquanina, and Cacophony are all lying, not to mention the hordes of posters who casually say, "I told my brother about my dream and he filled in the rest and it was the exact same thing as mine"? Granted, they all have anecdotal evidence, but there's just way too much to brush it aside entirely. That many people certainly hold an air of credibilty, and I would think that it's more likely than not that they're experiencing something that's real.

I don't know how credible Mzzkc's study was, but a 30%+ overlap when the odds are 1 in 5 billion? That seems like evidence to me.

Now, I'm a rational person and believe in scientific testing. It should be provable, so why don't we stop babbling about it and get this experiment done? As I said, I wish I could participate but we need experienced lucid dreamers that could dream on command. Might I suggest having someone like Raven Knight go into Ghost94's dreams and report what she saw in her dream journal before he posts his? That should work, and would be a way of convincing the skeptic. It wouldn't prove SDing to the world, but if we could do it with enough people in a large enough sample size we could create a credible and replicable test.

Personally, I believe in shared dreaming and am looking forward to the fun that could come with it. It sounds awesome and I don't know who wouldn't want to at least give it a try!

I have a feeling you are going to be involved in shared dreaming with us. Also you don't need to be lucid to share dreams.

I'm up for what Gmoney suggested. I'd like to attempt SD and see for myself if it works, you guys have been convincing me more and more and at the very least I HOPE it works... anyone experienced in SD willing to help me out PM me

Thanks

Originally Posted by GMoney

I've read through this thread and find the discussion very interesting. But why don't we just stop arguing and do something about it? Let's get testing.

It seems as if it's difficult to prove objectively, but it can be very easily proven to an individual subjectively. The skeptic doesn't post his/her DJ and the shared dreamer explains the dream - high similarity rates would prove shared dreaming to the skeptic, as no one else should know that information. I would be happy to participate in a test like this, but my inability to become lucid means that it would take months for me to prove this to anyone.

Based on the evidence for each case, though, I have to say that I believe in shared dreaming. I haven't experienced it yet (but hope to soon), but judging from the data it seems as if SDing is a real possibility. The study Mzzkc posted coupled with the enormous sea of anecdotal evidence indicate that shared dreaming is real.

I used to be a skeptic, but the vast array of evidence is just too massive. At first I thought WakingNomad and Raven Knight were the same person, but as I saw more and more shared dreamers I eventually came to realize that no one would have time to make that many accounts and repost different versions of the same story. Would anyone spend hours and hours every single day for over two years just to improve his Internet reputation? I don't think so.

If there were two or three people claiming to share dreams on the site, I would agree that they're probably lying/colluding to deceive the site. But do you really think that WakingNomad, Raven Knight, Man of Shred, Walms, TheCusp, Loaf, Kaomea, saltyseedog, Aquanina, and Cacophony are all lying, not to mention the hordes of posters who casually say, "I told my brother about my dream and he filled in the rest and it was the exact same thing as mine"? Granted, they all have anecdotal evidence, but there's just way too much to brush it aside entirely. That many people certainly hold an air of credibilty, and I would think that it's more likely than not that they're experiencing something that's real.

I don't know how credible Mzzkc's study was, but a 30%+ overlap when the odds are 1 in 5 billion? That seems like evidence to me.

Now, I'm a rational person and believe in scientific testing. It should be provable, so why don't we stop babbling about it and get this experiment done? As I said, I wish I could participate but we need experienced lucid dreamers that could dream on command. Might I suggest having someone like Raven Knight go into Ghost94's dreams and report what she saw in her dream journal before he posts his? That should work, and would be a way of convincing the skeptic. It wouldn't prove SDing to the world, but if we could do it with enough people in a large enough sample size we could create a credible and replicable test.

Personally, I believe in shared dreaming and am looking forward to the fun that could come with it. It sounds awesome and I don't know who wouldn't want to at least give it a try!

You're a skeptic. I'm a skeptic.

skep·tic also scep·tic (skptk)
n.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

Generally accepted conclusion:
"Shared dreaming is not real."

I DOUBT THAT.

I am the skeptic.

So, what is the purpose of convincing "skeptics"?

My personal definition of a skeptic is one who doubts until they experience for themselves.

People that claim to be skeptics of shared dreaming are often energy vampires.

They follow a very predictable pattern of behavior which is easily understood once you realize that attention = energy. When you give something or someone your attention, you are giving them your energy.

Inciting others to anger and arguing is energy vampire behavior.

Once you begin arguing with someone, you are giving them your energy.

Think of a two-year-old child that wants attention. First, they may run over to daddy or mommy and give them a hug, but if ignored will begin crying or screaming. If the child gets more attention from screaming than they do from trying to hug their parents, they will form a habit of screaming to get attention. This is how energy behavior is taught to children.

If you feel you must give attention to someone that is inciting you to argue, the best thing to do is try to return positive energy for the negative so you won't get sucked into their game. If you do, the other will steal your energy, and you will feel depleted and angry without even knowing why.

Think about this energetically:

Person A posts.

Person B replies.

Person A replies.

Person B, C, D, E, F, and X all reply to person A.

Who is receiving the most energy?

One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions

Assertion: Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof. e.g. shared dreaming

You were saying?

I believe it is possible, but that's just my opinion. It hasn't bene proven wrong, but it hasn't been proven right either...

Originally Posted by Mario92

Assertion: Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof. e.g. shared dreaming

You were saying?

He is saying that we need to not feel like we need to accept what society tells us is true. Often it is stated as true without any evidence other than that "everyone knows that". For example there is no evidence that shared dreaming is not real.

I like what you say about attention being energy. Energy is the ability to do work and with out attention you can't really do anything. Some would say things can't exist with out attention.

I think awareness is energy and what you focus on is where your energy goes, but thats just my mind drawing conclusions

GMoney, I agree with you in that there's just too much evidence with shared dreaming to be able to brush it off. The point you raise about the various people posting shared dreams and how it really isn't worth the time and effort it would take to falsify dreams is a good one. People could invest that same energy into writing a much more coherent and synchronized book if that was the case.

In the beginning of lucid dreaming for me I noticed I would post my dreams and then the other person would be like 'Whoa, I remember that!' and then fill in other details. There was a period where there was some doubt for me simply because what logical mind wouldn't doubt something like that. But after having shared dreams with reputable people... who know close to nothing about me... and later sharing various personal aspects in addition to a shared dream, I really couldn't deny that shared dreaming is at least possible.

I'm trying to tie it together on what creates a shared dream and came to the following... dreaming at the same time is necessary. I think if we access the person but they're not dreaming, then the person we get is still them but it is just an experience they won't remember. I also think there's a chance we can be creating a false them, but that opens the door to multiple realities and what exactly is 'false'. Also we need to keep in mind, most dreams aren't remembered if we're really tired... so the WBTB and WILDs tend to be useful here...

We should really consider doing some REAL research on this. Obviously the most ideal situation would be to do this in a sleep lab but that would require us to be in the same country, let alone the same state :\ I'd totally offer up my nights for free for anyone who wanted to study this. The only real requirement would be for the participants to be able to lucid dream and also have experienced a shared dream. Easy as pie... and the study should have what... N=30? HAHA. I wonder who'd be able to collect 30 lucid/shared dreamer particpants in one state... omg, that'd be impressive all by itself.

One can only dream.

if it's possible but you don't believe it, you won't experience it.

Originally Posted by chaspat

if it's possible but you don't believe it, you won't experience it.

Pure lies, my first SD was when I thought it was stupid and impossible.

Neither would I want this nor do I think its possible

Originally Posted by Wristblade56

um... yeah. i predict several firefights. it MIGHT be possible, ya never know. although if you think about it scientifically, i have no clue how someone's brain waves could acually travel to another person's head.

If it is possible then it could be like hypnosis - you can only hypnotise someone if they are comfortable with the procedure and feel good about it during it.

Refer to the 2nd post before yours for that, of course.

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

You're a skeptic. I'm a skeptic.

skep·tic also scep·tic (skptk)
n.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

Generally accepted conclusion:
"Shared dreaming is not real."

I DOUBT THAT.

I am the skeptic.

So, what is the purpose of convincing "skeptics"?

My personal definition of a skeptic is one who doubts until they experience for themselves.

People that claim to be skeptics of shared dreaming are often energy vampires.

They follow a very predictable pattern of behavior which is easily understood once you realize that attention = energy. When you give something or someone your attention, you are giving them your energy.

Inciting others to anger and arguing is energy vampire behavior.

Once you begin arguing with someone, you are giving them your energy.

Think of a two-year-old child that wants attention. First, they may run over to daddy or mommy and give them a hug, but if ignored will begin crying or screaming. If the child gets more attention from screaming than they do from trying to hug their parents, they will form a habit of screaming to get attention. This is how energy behavior is taught to children.

If you feel you must give attention to someone that is inciting you to argue, the best thing to do is try to return positive energy for the negative so you won't get sucked into their game. If you do, the other will steal your energy, and you will feel depleted and angry without even knowing why.

Think about this energetically:

Person A posts.

Person B replies.

Person A replies.

Person B, C, D, E, F, and X all reply to person A.

Who is receiving the most energy?

Nice. This post reminded of something. One video of R. A. Wilson on quantum physics:
Robert Anton Wilson explains Quantum Physics - YouTube
Just scroll to 1.43 min
It also reminds me of the observer effect. The observer creates the universe. It makes sense when you consider that attention=energy. I once had experience of that kind where i was seeing in my mind a space which was looking like a fine grid and when i was focusing on some spot then the spot became whatever it was. When i removed my attention it was again the grid and so on. It was strange and nice. This is quite similar to the moment when i fall asleep and see things. When i do not want to see smth i just remove my attention and it disappears if i want to expand it i concentrate on it.

Originally Posted by kenietz

Nice. This post reminded of something. One video of R. A. Wilson on quantum physics:
Robert Anton Wilson explains Quantum Physics - YouTube
Just scroll to 1.43 min
It also reminds me of the observer effect. The observer creates the universe. It makes sense when you consider that attention=energy. I once had experience of that kind where i was seeing in my mind a space which was looking like a fine grid and when i was focusing on some spot then the spot became whatever it was. When i removed my attention it was again the grid and so on. It was strange and nice. This is quite similar to the moment when i fall asleep and see things. When i do not want to see smth i just remove my attention and it disappears if i want to expand it i concentrate on it.

some one showed me this yesterday you might like it. the idea that matter is two waves in phase would seem to make sense of the observer having a part to play in creating reality

Dodecahedral Grids * Fractality * Gravity & LifeForce
http://www.youtube.com/v/tnMi-peIs6I

@Whiterain:
Thanks for the link. I will check it out when i have some time. The first part looks nice though.