Thread: Shared Dreaming Counter-Argument

I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in shared dreaming, or even that I don't, but I just got an interesting idea and I would like to share it. Your memory is in your brain. Your thoughts are in your brain. Therefore, if your mind were to somehow connect to the dream plane, you would literally have to receive real physical input from the dream plane, into your brain. Which means that the dream plane is either a physical plane, or is capable of holding or transmitting physical things like forces/energies, electrical currents, or maybe even objects. This creates some doubt in my mind as this concept could open up whole new abilities such as secret communications, storing/summoning objects using the dream plane, hacking or breaking someone's mind, or a number of things that would probably have a large role in modern society. I would also like to hear the forum's thoughts on this, and I'm up for debating if anyone wants to.

That sounds about right. It is all possible, but few will ever develop the skills needed.

Some thoughts on this:

We're omnivores on a world with limited resources: we live because others die. Telepathetic sharing is at a spiritual level, more like sharing your soul than sending a message. If you are open to that, you feel the contradiction of who you are, you can not escape the pain of empathy, and the knowledge of the crimes you commit or let others commit for you. And you expose yourself to those who would live at your expense. Nobody can deal with this, except in a very limited way. So those doors stay almost entirely closed.

When you are open, by definition you are not completely in control. Science and technology is about controlling things. If you can't control something, you can't perform a repeatable experiment, and you can't monetize it or otherwise harness it to your advantage. So the openness that is reflected in experiences of shared dreaming really does not lend itself very well to human exploitation.

We crave happiness, and contact, and personal power. To whatever extent you have psychic power, it is largely impossible to avoid abusing it in subtle ways. When you abuse it, others reflexively respond by using their power to limit your power, and to protect themselves by closing themselves. And your environment reacts to protect itself also, your karma works against you, so to speak.

Sharing a dream is a lot like seeing the future, its much the same thing but with regard to space rather than time. If you see the future intemperately, you define it in a way that prunes your own spiritual freedom or potential. I don't mean that you cause bad results, I mean that the unseen space of possibility that you live and breathe in spiritually dries up or freezes out as your visions manifest. It damages us personally, and if everyone could do this, it would destroy the world entirely. Things wouldn't develop or evolve, events would just flow out and disappear like water out of a spilled bucket. I don't understand why it works this way, but this is what my intuition says, and that for this reason our abilities are necessarily limited. And we cooperate with that limitation, we feel the unhealthy consequences and we shut it down willingly.

With effort, you can to some degree control things like heart rate, body temperature, hormone levels, etc. But for the most part these are left to subconscious control, because the temptations and risks would be too great if we controlled them consciously. They are subconscious by natural selection. Likewise with experiences like shared dreaming, except in a limited way or in exceptional circumstances.

I just gave a bunch of reasons that shared dreaming doesn't turn into radical new technology or ways of living. I don't mean to suggest that its not a natural part of who we are or that its unhealthy in moderation.

Originally Posted by Avian

I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in shared dreaming, or even that I don't, but I just got an interesting idea and I would like to share it. Your memory is in your brain. Your thoughts are in your brain. Therefore, if your mind were to somehow connect to the dream plane, you would literally have to receive real physical input from the dream plane, into your brain. Which means that the dream plane is either a physical plane, or is capable of holding or transmitting physical things like forces/energies, electrical currents, or maybe even objects. This creates some doubt in my mind as this concept could open up whole new abilities such as secret communications, storing/summoning objects using the dream plane, hacking or breaking someone's mind, or a number of things that would probably have a large role in modern society. I would also like to hear the forum's thoughts on this, and I'm up for debating if anyone wants to.

Exactly!
I've been using this argument myself, never mind all the other ones - I am convinced, we would see the fallout from such a scenario deeply engrained in culture; and would have found scientific proof by now, besides multiple usages - no matter where you move the goalposts. Curiosity fuelled by actuality, not wish-full thinking.

Originally Posted by StephL

Exactly!
I've been using this argument myself, never mind all the other ones - I am convinced, we would see the fallout from such a scenario deeply engrained in culture; and would have found scientific proof by now, besides multiple usages - no matter where you move the goalposts. Curiosity fuelled by actuality, not wish-full thinking.

And yet, we went from day 1 for say 100,000 years with out figuring out radio waves, which were passing through our bodies every second of every one of those 100,000 years.

Originally Posted by sivason

And yet, we went from day 1 for say 100,000 years with out figuring out radio waves, which were passing through our bodies every second of every one of those 100,000 years.

The problem is that we have already discovered radiowaves, and we didn't have today's technology to discover it with either. So, now that we have such incredible technology, why have we not detected said powers? There isn't much of an excuse. We have the intellect, we have the tools, where is the substance?

Originally Posted by sivason

And yet, we went from day 1 for say 100,000 years with out figuring out radio waves, which were passing through our bodies every second of every one of those 100,000 years.

Yes. But humanity wasn't confronted with strange phenomena, which's explanation would turn out to be about radio-waves.
They don't affect us, passing through us - they do not beg for an explanation, they didn't cause unusual, inexplicable results, let alone held a conceivable promise of potential benefit.
While in the case of supernatural abilities - we are talking about something, which should have been eliciting actual noticeable effects for those 100.000 years. And unlike other relevant "mysteries" - we wouldn't have needed any technology to go after deciphering it, learning it, developing an art out of it. We only needed our minds for it, and that would have been possible right from the start.
Lets say physics and neurobiology would indeed allow for this sort of phenomenon - it would present an evolutionary benefit, I don't think, it'd stay occult for the vast majority of people, but rather develop into a common ability, at least a commonly known about ability over those thousands upon thousands of years.

So what I'm saying is - if humanity would have been confronted with the mysterious results of those activities, our curiosity and resourcefulness would have been sparked in such a way as to develop a whole culture around it, teachers, experimenters, you name it. A really widespread up to universal culture, because the potential of it would be immense. A scenario like in fantasy fiction, maybe, with magical schools and adepts and stuff*, but part of the normal world and undoubted. And in such a scenario, I would expect proper scientific proof by now as well, that's rather an afterthought of the before mentioned, though.

Of course you could say - naa - these abilities are too rare, or weak, or hard to master, or being too purposefully and skilfully hidden to really produce an observable fallout.

So hence this view of mine is not a real argument, it can be shot down from several directions at once, I'm aware of that.
It's just my personal opinion, that if there was such a potential in principle - then it would have put it's stamp on human history and culture.


I'm not in the mood to argue, actually, I was just perking up at the OP, because this point is only seldom brought forward by somebody else, that's why I chimed in and agreed.
Peace!


*One of my personal favourite desires, that it would be so. All my childhood, and beyond - and yes, it was sort of sad to come to the conclusion, that this indeed is but a dream. After getting into lucid dreaming, this sadness has been countered in my mind, though. Even while magic isn't something I will ever encounter in real life - I can have as much of it as I want in my LDs. This is consolation for me. Maybe it is very well hidden, how much attraction all of this once held, and still holds for me, since I'm always arguing against it these days, against the reality of it. But make no mistake, I was into stuff like this a lot, up to wanting to believe in elves in my adulthood. I still love art of the "spiritual kind", and I still crave such experiences, but I'm expecting them only in my dreams.

All in the sense of good fun and a neat debate. No arguing intended.

Originally Posted by StephL

1)Yes. But humanity wasn't confronted with strange phenomena, which's explanation would turn out to be about radio-waves.
They don't affect us, passing through us - they do not beg for an explanation, they didn't cause unusual, inexplicable results, let alone held a conceivable promise of potential benefit.


2)While in the case of supernatural abilities - we are talking about something, which should have been eliciting actual noticeable effects for those 100.000 years.


3) And unlike other relevant "mysteries" - we wouldn't have needed any technology to go after deciphering it, learning it, developing an art out of it. We only needed our minds for it, and that would have been possible right from the start.


4) Lets say physics and neurobiology would indeed allow for this sort of phenomenon - it would present an evolutionary benefit, I don't think, it'd stay occult for the vast majority of people, but rather develop into a common ability, at least a commonly known about ability over those thousands upon thousands of years.

So what I'm saying is - if humanity would have been confronted with the mysterious results of those activities, our curiosity and resourcefulness would have been sparked in such a way as to develop a whole culture around it, teachers, experimenters, you name it.

5) A really widespread up to universal culture, because the potential of it would be immense. A scenario like in fantasy fiction, maybe, with magical schools and adepts and stuff*, but part of the normal world and undoubted.

6)Of course you could say - naa - these abilities are too rare, or weak, or hard to master, or being too purposefully and skilfully hidden to really produce an observable fallout.

So hence this view of mine is not a real argument, it can be shot down from several directions at once, I'm aware of that.

1) Fine, switch my example to electricity. It is observable, and so on. It is by far the easiest force of its kind to see and study, but we are really just understanding it well in the last 80 years or so. The photon which is even more profound on the level of our awareness and interaction is to this day barely understood. The Higgs Bosan particle has possibly been observed one time despite 20 years of our top scientists spending millions searching for it. It supposedly gives mass to matter, which is a profound effect indeed.


2) Please refer to every holy man recorded in every religion for all of history.

3) Chi, Ki, Kundalini, Prana, Rekie, sufism, shamanism, kabal, gnostism, rosicrutianism,,, and so on

4) About the same as how Lucid dreaming is so darn simple to master and understand and useful that everyone is doing it? What possible evolutionary benefit would shared dreaming offer if it took 20 years to master and no one was teaching it.

5) Widespread like Ninjitsu or Jujitsu were in the 18th century? Those things were as hidden and rare as anything, but are nothing more than knowledge of physical skills. As wide spread as those schools that teach women to break wine goblets with their voices? I imagine only 1 in a 1000 have the potential to do that trick, but far fewer than 1 in a 1000 every try it in a serious way. It is probably more useful than shared dreaming as the wine glass does not need 20 years training to break. I have never seen that skill, but hear it is real. Do you know of any universities specializing in it?

6) Thanks, enough said there.

Originally Posted by sivason

All in the sense of good fun and a neat debate. No arguing intended.

That's nice!

1) Fine, switch my example to electricity. It is observable, and so on. It is by far the easiest force of its kind to see and study, but we are really just understanding it well in the last 80 years or so. The photon which is even more profound on the level of our awareness and interaction is to this day barely understood. The Higgs Bosan particle has possibly been observed one time despite 20 years of our top scientists spending millions searching for it. It supposedly gives mass to matter, which is a profound effect indeed.

This is a better analogy, but I've got an objection again. Electricity would be one of these "other relevant mysteries", I mentioned; something, which can indeed be witnessed in it's at time extreme effects, say lighting strikes.
But you do need technology in order to make use of it and to try and understand it. It's not a human ability, like some electric fish have it. If it were one, I guess, early humankind would have found multiple uses and nobody would doubt it - one jolt and it's demonstrated to satisfaction.

You are correct, though, just having something demonstrated does by no means provide you with an explanation as to the mechanism of it. In such a hypothetical world with magic - I could well imagine the phenomenon to be somewhat elusive to scientific scrutiny, maybe like QM, but not ultimately so, and the higher the importance people ascribe to it, the more money and resources would be thrown at it.
Again - in order to use and demonstrate "supernatural abilities", all you need is minds, unaided.

4) About the same as how Lucid dreaming is so darn simple to master and understand and useful that everyone is doing it? What possible evolutionary benefit would shared dreaming offer if it took 20 years to master and no one was teaching it.

Yes - my estimation on the benefits doesn't really apply to shared dreaming, and that of course is the topic of the thread. Why did I say this then? Because of a conjecture of mine, of course open to debate - I believe, that if something as monumental as direct contact between minds over a distance would be possible in principle - then it wouldn't be only the case when it comes to dreams, but the door would indeed be open for at the least telepathy, but probably all sorts of magic. Whatever spiritual realms or forces or fields... you claim there are - at one point they needed to get into direct contact with another person's mind, and if you think the brain as an antenna, like I read it often, then what actually happens would be your mind influencing another person's not only mind, but brain, even if secondarily. So there you'd have a theoretical basis for the mind taking influence on other matter. You could say, only animate matter, or only brains of sentient beings, sure. But for me, if one of those classical phenomena would be possible - a bunch of others, at least a select part, should be possible as well. And evolution, having the possible access to it, might well have selected related abilities into animals as well. Imagine prey and predator scenarios under these premises - it would be directly relevant.
Anyway - all this on the basis of postulating another state of affairs in physics and biology than we know, to accommodate for it.

2) Please refer to every holy man recorded in every religion for all of history.

3) Chi, Ki, Kundalini, Prana, Rekie, sufism, shamanism, kabal, gnostism, rosicrutianism,,, and so on

5) Widespread like Ninjitsu or Jujitsu were in the 18th century? Those things were as hidden and rare as anything, but are nothing more than knowledge of physical skills. As wide spread as those schools that teach women to break wine goblets with their voices? I imagine only 1 in a 1000 have the potential to do that trick, but far fewer than 1 in a 1000 every try it in a serious way. It is probably more useful than shared dreaming as the wine glass does not need 20 years training to break. I have never seen that skill, but hear it is real. Do you know of any universities specializing in it?

It's a matter of scale, under the above assumption of enormous potential usefulness. I'd really expect a fantasy world with famous sorcerers influencing international politics since ages and different animal ecosystems etc.
I'd really expect this, I'm serious. It's only an add-on, a speculation I entertain, though; it has no real value as a counter-argument, if it's on it's own and taken without the classical approach: no mechanism conceivable*, combined with lack of valid evidence**, unfortunately combined with many examples of sloppy science up to tampering, false claims and right-out fraud to gain power and/or rip people off their money. None of these alone would be sufficient to judge, but taken together, they do convince me.

6) Thanks, enough said there.

Cheers - did part of "your work" there!



*Conceivable on the basis of the state of current science; this point extends to theoretical violation of established natural laws and scientific theories - theories not in the colloquial use of hypothesis, or conjecture. That's a can of worms, I'm honestly too lazy to open, though. What I remember now, is having read about problems with relativity theory and thermodynamics, and the arguments were comprehensible and plausible enough for me.

**This can stand on it's own, but need not be sufficient: Say something of interest hasn't been properly tried yet, a mechanism is conceivable and possibly a lot of credible anecdotal evidence present.

Also you brain would have to actually connect to the dream plane. I feel like having a portal to another dimension open up in your brain would cause some weird physics stuff to happen. And how would said dimension connect to your brain? Something has to connect it, it's not like it will just happen because you are sleeping... doors don't just open. There is a physical process to opening a door.

Edit:
At the same time, however, I refuse to disbelieve shared dreaming until I have done an experiment in a controlled environment.

"When you are open, by definition you are not completely in control. Science and technology is about controlling things. If you can't control something, you can't perform a repeatable experiment, and you can't monetize it or otherwise harness it to your advantage. So the openness that is reflected in experiences of shared dreaming really does not lend itself very well to human exploitation."

Now I don't want to sound mean, but it seems like you are just saying that shared dreaming doesn't follow the scientific process. And if it doesn't follow the scientific process it doesn't have any sort of logic to it. So while someone might say that you can't prove or disprove it with the scientific process, that is just a glorified way of saying it isn't real. You could be right if you say that, but it doesn't matter anyways because you will never have any evidence of it being real or not real, so you might as well just say it isn't. This is because there are literally millions of things that have no evidence as to whether they exist. So if your belief is entirely faith and nothing else would it not be hypocritical to disbelieve any of these millions of things, such as sasquatch, aliens, vampires, etc.

Avian:

I actually attempted a thread about how shared-dreaming might work some time back, called On the Nature of Shared Dreaming. Though it quickly wandered off topic, I think you might find some interesting stuff in it.

Hey, I wrote this topic on shared dreaming some time ago, you can have a read and let me know what you think. http://www.dreamviews.com/beyond-dre...-dreaming.html

Lately we had more success and I can save your time and say that shared dreaming does exist, there is no doubt about it.

It is nice to see that you are having right thoughts about it.

Well now, wouldn't disbelief in aliens be foolish just based off our current understanding?

That argument is not sound. Certainly some things are beyond our ability to prove or disprove, but that is because these things are not supposed to be physical. I actually very curious lately as to what drives the atheist or pure science mind set. It actually ends up being a extreme act of faith to feel like nothing exists that is not of the physical world. Some personality issue must be going on there, but I am not sure what.

No dimensional door needs to open in the brain. Dimensions exist on top of each other in the same space. That means no barrier exist between them. How can a barrier be between two things that occupy the same space?

Originally Posted by sivason

Well now, wouldn't disbelief in aliens be foolish just based off our current understanding?

Wait a minute, how? Could you elaborate on this please? Why would the very probable existence of aliens and the belief that they very probably exist be viewed by anyone (other than religious people) as foolish? To me this is not a very good argument, because given the great length of time that the universe has already existed and its vast reach, what exactly makes the idea that aliens might exist seem foolish? I get that you are trying to say that there isn't solid evidence proving they are real (even though there kind of is, although that is subject to another debate), but our current knowledge and understanding of the universe suggests that they would, in fact, exist, especially given the fact that we do. We have already found evidence of microorganisms living on different planets and celestial bodies other than our own, and we have found plenty of water on said bodies as well, even if it is frozen. Trying to use this to prove that disproving shared dreaming doesn't make sense... doesn't make sense. Now, using that argument to prove that disproving dreaming itself exists makes sense, because there isn't any "direct" way to prove dreaming actually occurs other than our subjective experiences, claims, and then brain scans and whatnot. Even then, that doesn't work well since there is a way of measuring "dreaming", so long as the subject can confirm they were dreaming during the time period in which the scans suggest dreaming is actually occurring. Shared dreaming on the other hand takes it a step further than that, and that is where your alien argument falls apart. For your alien argument to make more sense, you would have to claim that not only do aliens exist, but we make regular contact with them, only those who do are not allowed to tell anybody or have their memories wiped clean after contact. Then, you would be making a case, because nobody could prove you otherwise. Do you see what I'm saying?

Originally Posted by Avian

Your memory is in your brain. Your thoughts are in your brain. Therefore, if your mind were to somehow connect to the dream plane, you would literally have to receive real physical input from the dream plane, into your brain. Which means that the dream plane is either a physical plane, or is capable of holding or transmitting physical things like forces/energies, electrical currents, or maybe even objects.

These statements seem to be nothing more than a collection of assumptions and opinions, including the first two statements "your memory/thoughts are in your brain" even though they are presented as fact. It is quite possible that the brain is simply a medium between consciousness and the body/physical reality, and that thoughts and memory are functions and attributes of nonphysical consciousness that the brain decodes and transmits so that one may utilize these mental functions in the physical world. Perhaps the mind resonates on a much higher frequency than the physical dimension and the brain in a conduit that allows one's consciousness/mind to interact within a lower vibrational body.

Originally Posted by VinceField

These statements seem to be nothing more than a collection of assumptions and opinions, including the first two statements "your memory/thoughts are in your brain" even though they are presented as fact. It is quite possible that the brain is simply a medium between consciousness and the body/physical reality, and that thoughts and memory are functions and attributes of nonphysical consciousness that the brain decodes and transmits so that one may utilize these mental functions in the physical world. Perhaps the mind resonates on a much higher frequency than the physical dimension and the brain in a conduit that allows one's consciousness/mind to interact within a lower vibrational body.

I like that way of looking at it. While we can figure out physical ways the brain works, there are parts of a person's self that may not be directly because of the brain.

Well sivason you are partially correct about the "pure science/atheist" deal. Many such people are just as ignorant as a zealot blinded by their own faith. I would assume they are like that because they are cynical people and it makes them feel good about themselves. But me, I am not like that. I absolutely believe that anything is possible... in fact I have my very own set of beliefs that is certainly not "atheist". The reason I deny things I don't have proof of is because of this concept:
There are two types of probability, local and universal.
Since we cannot even be sure if our senses are correct, which means we can't be sure anything is real, the universal probability of anything is always 50/50. The local probability is the probability of something using the assumption that what we observe is the real world. Therefore I use the scientific method. So sure, I can believe anything on a philosophical level but it is absolutely impractical to not be an "atheist/pure science believer" on the level of average life. This is because (assuming you are being logical) if you believe in something without any reason or proof, you must also believe in any other thing that you have no reason or proof to believe or disbelieve. Therefore, if you believe in shared dreaming, you must also believe in dark magic, aliens, psi, monsters under your bed, monsters in the closet, zombie virus, illuminati, everyone is a robot except you, etc. Unless, of course, you are willing to admit you have an inclination towards believing shared dreaming but not these other things. So if you have a reason to believe shared dreaming but it isn't logic or proof, what is it? Maybe the mere fact that you want to? Which in turn means that you are a non-logical person, and there is nothing wrong with it, but that doesn't mean people will believe anything you say. I, in fact, also use such non-logical beliefs such as the fact that I believe there is something after death simply because I want to.

To VinceField:
The same thing goes for you. This is surely possible, and I don't see any reason you shouldn't believe that, but there is also absolutely no reason or proof you should. Therefore you might as well say it isn't real. Well, sure if you want to spice up your life with supernatural concepts such as these go for it, but I choose to live in this local reality because I think reality is extremely beautiful without human-imagined things, and if there is something innately supernatural or spiritual about it, I want to keep my eyes pealed for that instead of not seeing it because I am too focused on concepts of my own creation. Well, actually such as mentioned above there are a few things I choose to believe in, but I am very open and I don't bother pretending that I have any good reason to believe in them.


Edit :typo

Originally Posted by Avian

To VinceField:
The same thing goes for you. This is surely possible, and I don't see any reason you shouldn't believe that, but there is also absolutely no reason or proof you should. Therefore you might as well say it isn't real. Well, sure if you want to spice up your life with supernatural concepts such as these go for it, but I choose to live in this local reality because I think reality is extremely beautiful without human-imagined things, and if there is something innately supernatural or spiritual about it, I want to keep my eyes pealed for that instead of not seeing it because I am too focused on concepts of my own creation.

Well, I agree with your statement that there is no proof for the ideas that I presented (although I did not say that I believe they are true; I simply accept them as a possibility). However, it is a mistake to correlate a lack of physical proof with nonexistence. For one to say that something does not exist because it has not been proven by science (or any other means) is an act born of delusion, just as much as claiming that something does exist with no proof is.

Also, keep in mind that there is no proof for your statement implying that thoughts and memories are born from and contained within the brain, so I believe it is wise to avoid accepting such notions as fact. If you truly want to remain open to experience new concepts of a "supernatural" or "spiritual" nature, entertaining the false conviction that all mental activity is solely a product of the brain will certainly hinder this goal.

Avian, Does that argument actually make sense? First lets assume I have no proof (I will address that in a moment), it sounds like you are saying if I believe in something with no proof, I should believe in all things with no proof? As a rational being why would that hold true. If a child asks me to guess what they have behind their back, I am more likely to believe it is either food or a toy (with no proof) than I am to believ it is any severed part of a body. I have no proof for either; I believe one, but do not consider the other as practicle. In your example isn't dark magic and psi far more practicle than a monster under my bed. With no background of any kind, I may instictive know that monsters under my bed make far less sense than some theoretical form of energy I do not understand.

Now, how about proof? This subject matter will need proven to each individual as it is not easily demostrated and is easily faked.

Do I believe in shared dreaming? I have not experienced it, I have not met anyone on here who claims they can do it in a serious manner, but I do have experience with super-natural result in dreaming such as pre-cognition. So, I conclude it easily could be true, based on my own experience, yet reserve some doubt as I have seen little in the way of anything, even other peoples statements.

Aliens? Come on, do some research into modern cosmology. Of course I 100%+, as a scientist believe in aliens. Do I believe in aliens here on Earth? I find it very unlikely due to that same study of cosmology. Rational thought, leading me to varrying degrees of willingness to consider something.

Now, for the individual, what if that individual has 1st hand experience repeated thousands of times with other "super-natural" items? Can that really be considered believing without proof?

No one should even bother trying to convince another person. Go explore these things in a logical, scientific way that provides proof to only yourself. As an example put serious effort into Kundalini for a year. If it results in no weird sensations, well fine. If it does explore it more. Learn to do mental discipline tricks, through serious meditation, until you can do standard yogic tricks like walk outside in the snow naked and feel hot. That is where the proof is, in each persons willingness to do the steps involved,a nd either experiencing nothing or finding something.

I am not sure if you guys quite understand what I am trying to say. I am not in any way denying that any of these things exist. Well, let's take an imaginary object called "A". Then there are "B" and "C". We have proof that B exists, and we have proof that C does not exist. So B is in the realm of existing things and C is in the realm of non-existing things. We have no proof that A exists, and we have no proof that A doesn't exist. That puts A neither in the realm of existing things or non-existing things. There is no reason to believe in A, because there are literally infinite things like it that you have just as good reason to believe in. To do so would be absolutely random and illogical. Now take the object "D". We have no proof as to whether D exists, but there is a reason to believe it. Maybe you think it is cool, or maybe you have some evidence but it is not definitive. It is still not logical to believe in D in its current state, as it is still in the same group as A. This is a point where you might want to use the scientific method to take D and put it in the same group as B, or C, and then you will know its true state. But if you don't know the state of whether something exists, even if you have a reason to believe it, it is still illogical to believe it.

Originally Posted by Avian

I am not sure if you guys quite understand what I am trying to say.

Perhaps what you were trying to say was a bit different from what you actually said. I completely understood your posts and responded in complete accordance with the statements you had made. If I said something inappropriate or if you believe what I said doesn't apply, I would be interested to know.

Ok. A B C D

If we have an item D that the world has not proven, but we have plenty of first hand experience with it, we should believe it because we know it exists AND not care what the world thinks.

If the item is A and truely silly such as 'everyone else is a robot" then we should decide it is so unlikely as to not warrant thought or consideration.

The items in D though, should not be disbelieved though. That is where you loose me. They should be placed in "the unkown, to be decided..." part of your rational thought.

The problem perhaps is for some bizarre reason you are placing psi type events on the same level of unlikely as say "mutant undead ice cream cones." That is unless I am missing why you seem to be saying ALL unproven things should be disbelieved in equal degrees.

Originally Posted by sivason

Ok. A B C D

If we have an item D that the world has not proven, but we have plenty of first hand experience with it, we should believe it because we know it exists AND not care what the world thinks.

If the item is A and truely silly such as 'everyone else is a robot" then we should decide it is so unlikely as to not warrant thought or consideration.

The items in D though, should not be disbelieved though. That is where you loose me. They should be placed in "the unkown, to be decided..." part of your rational thought.

The problem perhaps is for some bizarre reason you are placing psi type events on the same level of unlikely as say "mutant undead ice cream cones." That is unless I am missing why you seem to be saying ALL unproven things should be disbelieved in equal degrees.

You have continued to misinterpret my statements and use your interpreted version in your argument. If you cannot understand my logic after the following post, I don't think anything will make you see it.

No, they are not all on equal degrees, but they are still unknown. It is like this:
We are standing on a hill. Our location represents total belief. That means if something is proven, like whether water exists, it is on this hill. There is a mountain in the distance. The mountain represents non - belief. If we can prove something doesn't exist, it is there.

Between here and that yonder mountain, there are several things. First, we have B, which is here in my hand. Then we have C, which I know is on the top of the mountain. Then there is A. A is exactly between here and the mountain because we have literally no experience, reason, or evidence on whether it is real. D is also somewhere between here and the mountain. Let's just say we have reason to believe in D, like personal experience or something. So that means it is somewhere between here and halfway to the mountain, or between here and A. So it is still more likely to believe than A, but we don't know HOW likely. It might be 25% of the way to the mountain, but if we don't know the distance to the mountain it doesn't matter.

If you cannot definitively prove or disprove something it puts it in a grey area because how can you calculate how likely it is to exist with a fact like "it really really seems like it works". If you don't have data from a controlled environment, you have no scale with which to judge the probability of the concept existing. Which is where you are wrong on your statement that it isn't real because "it isn't proven by the world". That is not what I mean. What I mean is if there is no evidence WHICH WAS TAKEN FROM A CONTROLLED SCENARIO USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, it is put in a grey area with no scale, meaning that you cannot possibly know how likely it is that it exists. And if that is true, there is no reason to believe it because it is just the same as A.

For the sake of diversity and repetition, I will give you another analogy. There is a box full of extremely murky water. You cannot see what is in the water at all because of how murky the water is. You have B which is in your hand. This is because you reached into the water (an analogy for trying to find out if something is real) and found it. You not only found it, but verified its existence using the scientific method. Then you have C. You are sure C is not in the box because you found C outside of the box (this is an analogy for disproving something. It is fitting because you don't disprove something by a lack of evidence of its existence, but evidence of its lack of existence). Then there is A. You can't be sure if A is real, because you put your hand in the water and didn't find A, but you didn't find it outside the box either. So A has exactly a 50/50 chance of being in the box. Then there is D. You reached into the box to look for D, and you brushed something that felt like D (sounds like an innuendo, not intended.. also this represents doing research NOT under a controlled environment, NOT using the scientific method. It would be something like "usually it works" or any other justification you could have for its existence that is not solid evidence). Now you can be MORE sure that D is real, but you still have no index. It is in a box of murky water, just like A. So there is still no reason to believe it any more than you would believe in A.

Now I will supply a counter-argument because I thought of this:
What if from personal experience you decide it is more likely than not that, for example, Sasquatch is real. Say you have the following facts:
- You saw a large two-legged non-human simian-looking creature in the forest.
- It definitely was not a human in a costume
If these two facts are true, it would be reasonable to say that you believe in Sasquatch because it is "more likely than not" that it is real. Then I realized that this is because what you observed was so close to a controlled environment that it might as well be. It was within the realm of human error. Which basically means that it was a controlled experiment, but the instruments were your senses, which are flawed. The same thing would be if you go outside on an absolutely windless day and practice aerokinesis. Say every time you try to make the wind blow it happens within 2 seconds, and stops within 2 seconds every time you stop trying to make it blow. This would be an example of it being "good enough".

So I revise my previous statement:
There is no reason to believe something unless you have either definite proof from an experiment using the scientific method in a controlled environment, OR the same thing but with an extremely small margin of error.

If you have either of these please present them.


Edit: Typo. Also I mentioned psi as I am currently holding another argument which is now basically the same argument as this one on the following thread: http://www.dreamviews.com/beyond-dre...es-skills.html

Originally Posted by Forg

Shared dreaming is actually very easy to proof in a scientific way. The only thing you need are some skilled lucid dreamers. Give one of them a number of word, let them share a dream and say this number/word to the other person. Check if the word/number they received, is correct.

It sounds really easy like this, but there will probably be some issues.

This is exactly correct but I have not found one such instance of this in any post on dreamviews. Many people just say they proved it from their dreams, which is completely counter-intuitive.




Actually, me and my friend are both doing an ongoing experiment with shared dreaming. Once we get good enough lucid dreaming, we are going to attempt shared dreaming. For the sake of entering the same dream, we will both know the scenario of the dream before-hand. Then once we are both there we will exchange pieces of information. I will say a word and he will say a word. Then we will promptly wake up and verify that those were the actual pieces of information that we shared. If it is correct, it will be reasonable to believe shared dreaming is real.

Shared dreaming is actually very easy to proof in a scientific way. The only thing you need are some skilled lucid dreamers. Give one of them a number of word, let them share a dream and say this number/word to the other person. Check if the word/number they received, is correct.

It sounds really easy like this, but there will probably be some issues.

Originally Posted by Forg

Shared dreaming is actually very easy to proof in a scientific way. The only thing you need are some skilled lucid dreamers. Give one of them a number of word, let them share a dream and say this number/word to the other person. Check if the word/number they received, is correct.

It sounds really easy like this, but there will probably be some issues.

Let's start with the first huge issue. Please find me 2 people who claim to have this ability. Next out of the entire pool (so far zero) of suppossedly qualified subjects eliminate any who do not claim to be able to do this reliably with over a 50% success rate (so, zero minus, hmmm). Now come up with enough funding to take them away from their lives and fly them to a controlled enough enviroment (anyone that skilled is probably leading a good life and will want a nice vacation package for them and their spouse).

I am sure other problems would come up, but until you got that far, how could you even start?



Snoop, It was not my agrument. Read Avian's stuff and see if you can figure it out. He seemed to be saying if you believe in aliens then you also MUST believe in monsters under the bed AND shared dreaming. I was just as confused. See below,

Originally Posted by sivason

Avian, Does that argument actually make sense? First lets assume I have no proof (I will address that in a moment), it sounds like you are saying if I believe in something with no proof, I should believe in all things with no proof? As a rational being why would that hold true? .......
Aliens? Come on, do some research into modern cosmology. Of course I 100%+, as a scientist believe in aliens. Do I believe in aliens here on Earth? I find it very unlikely due to that same study of cosmology. Rational thought, leading me to varrying degrees of willingness to consider something.
.