Thread: Dream Sharing Course (Suggestion)

I think that's an interesting suggestion. If the guides here were open to it I'd like to see the direction they would take it in.

What specifically would be taught in this class?

Specifically, the class would build on the skills taught in the other classes (I’ve outlined, below, what the other classes teach as there’s no interest in re-inventing the wheel). Some of these courses have done a very thorough job of outlining the components of lucid dreaming. The course should be taught using plain language but there’s academically mature research which should be included (I can easily cite and reference, others wouldn’t need to unless they felt like it). The course would grab from the information already provided in other courses and apply that knowledge base into a social setting using a practical approach.

Shared dreaming outline:
1. Perception

a. situational
b. visual (what we’re capable of seeing in waking translates to how we see in dreaming ((visual cones)) ).
c. perceptual deviance

2. Mental Disorders

a. medication effects on cognitive function related to dreaming (but explained using plain language).
b. disorders

3. Communication

a. applying self-awareness into social situations
b. objectivity
c. subjectivity
d. use of language
e. terminology

4. Is proof necessary? Yes and No.

a. why

5. Optimal conditions for shared dreams
6. Types of people or entities to interact with
7. Telepathy

a. shared dreaming is a form of telepathy
b. communicating by thought in dreams
c. transferring the skill from dreaming to waking

Current DV Courses:

Intro Class (OpheliaBlue, NyxCC)
1. Intro to Lucid Dreaming Basics
a. acronyms, definitions, adequate sleep
2. Overview of the Types of Lucid Dreaming Techniques
a. DILD, MILD, WILD, DEILD, WBTB, Dream Yoga
3. Overview on Awareness
a. sensory, self, meditation
4. Dream Stabilization & Control
a. remain calm, positive thinking, visual, tactile, vocal, control, sustaining

General Lucid Dreaming (Scionox)
1. Improve recall
2. Create dream goals
3. Practice technique

WILD (Sageous)
1. Mental Prep Part I
2. Timing
3. Notes about the Noise
4. Mental Prep Part II – Forming Dreams
5. Mantras
6. Doing the Dive
7. Alternative WILD

DILD (gab)
1. Reality Checks
2. Awareness
3. WBTB

Dream Control and Stabilization (dutchraptor, BrandonBoss, and Alyzarin)
1. Control
a. universe, shift, memory, program
2. Persistent
a. realms, characters, items

Dream Yoga (Sivason)
1. Basic Skills
Lesson 1
Lesson 2
2. Intermediate Skill – Visualization Training
Creating Motion
Energy Flow Simulation
3. Advanced Skill – Immunity to Shock
Suppressing Emerging Thoughts

So what's the process for starting courses? Is it a voting system, interest based...?

Before you start the process for establishing your class, RedKali, you might want to consider an important aspect of DV courses: credibility.

Though your class outline is already impressive enough to me that I'd be interested in following it, there is one thing missing that I think must be addressed:

In order to teach a course on shared-dreaming, I think that you need to have the confidence of your students not only that you are a successful shared dreamer, but also that the things you are teaching might pass that success onto them, if they follow the course properly. I'm not seeing that.

Are you suggesting instead that we have a class about shared dreaming, sort of a survey of popular theories and potentials (which would be fine by me, BTW), or are you suggesting a class for advancing the actual art of shared dreaming, assuming there is one? I thing DVA tends to lean toward the "art" camp, in that they want to offer "how-to" classes, rather than theoretical classes, so we would really need to have an accomplished dream-sharer as instructor, one who can confidently transfer his ability to willing students... would that be you?

On the other hand, I could be wrong; DV might be open to a well-presented theoretical class about dream-sharing. As I said, that would be fine with me too, but by offering such a class you might run the risk of "students" spending their time arguing about whether dream-sharing exists at all, and demanding proof of that from their professor before discussing anything else about the subject, to the point that the interesting and valuable stuff you suggest teaching gets ignored.

tl;dr: Would this be a "how-to" course for shared dreaming? If so, can you confidently provide the necessary "Been there, done that," credibility so that your students can both accept your words and aspire to your example? Or would this class simply be a survey about shared-dreaming, with no expectation of learning how to do it?

I hope this post doesn't come off as negative; it wasn't meant that way -- I actually think this is a good idea.

Sageous, I appreciate your response and you bring up valid concerns. If no one questions me then the discussion won't progress, so it's helpful that you've done so. I'll attempt to tackle the concerns as briefly as I can--as I have a tendency to be wordy at times. I'll do my best, heh.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Before you start the process for establishing your class, RedKali, you might want to consider an important aspect of DV courses: credibility.

I think what you might mean isn't credibility, but popularity. I'm aware of the credentials for most of those who teach the current DV courses (I've been a member of DV for about 10 years now, previously under a different name. I know the general backgrounds of many of the instructors). There's a large range of credentials, some are merely high school grads, some have written very knowledgeable books on dreaming. It's a mixed bag of credentials. Personally, I have an advanced degree in psychology and have experienced numerous (granted that's a vague term) confirmed shared dreams. I've been a member of another site where we dream share and have been a moderator there, an admin on another dreaming site, and I've been a teacher for the last 10 years. Yes, I can even provide references and documentation for anything I claim here (including the confirmed shared dreams). Do I think it would be excessive to have to prove certain aspects--probably. Especially considering the credentials of a couple of the instructors... but I'm willing to do it since I lack popularity and remain largely unknown. I have the credentials going by the current standards and expectations of what's currently in place. That's why I think it's not merely a matter of credentials, but popularity.

Popularity makes more sense. You don't want to invite people into leadership roles when the community doesn't know who they are. There's a high-risk of letting irresponsible people become too involved. Also, my account reflects practically no postings on these forums. I'm not involved in the forum community, so there's no fan-base, no established trust, and most do not know who I am.

I highly value my privacy it is no accident people do not know me well. Though I can see how that works against my favor when wanting to pursue something like being involved in a shared dreaming course.

Originally Posted by Sageous

In order to teach a course on shared-dreaming, I think that you need to have the confidence of your students not only that you are a successful shared dreamer, but also that the things you are teaching might pass that success onto them, if they follow the course properly. I'm not seeing that.

This is a larger concern. Shared dreaming is an experimental area of dreaming. Most average people (in terms of intelligence) can be taught how to lucid dream. Those are basic skills. Not that it's easy to become skilled at lucid dreaming, but that the skill itself can be taught in a very linear fashion. Shared dreaming can't be taught in the same manner. It's a lot more fluid, and that's mainly because it's a team effort (two or more people involved). Lucid dreaming is like math, you learn the skill, practice, and it's typically done individually. Shared dreaming requires an accommodation for others. People don't only work with themselves, but they're balancing between more than one awareness. Hence, that kind of balancing act will depend on those involved, on a case by case basis, because everyone is cognitively different than one another.

You're right, I don't think there could be a course on shared dreaming which anyone could follow and reap the desired objective from. I certainly cannot make that promise for anyone who might enroll in such a course. Hence why it's still an experimental area of dreaming.

What I can offer them are skills to help move them in that direction. Skills based on scientific research and field experience Best of both worlds.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Are you suggesting instead that we have a class about shared dreaming, sort of a survey of popular theories and potentials or are you suggesting a class for advancing the actual art of shared dreaming, assuming there is one? I thing DVA tends to lean toward the "art" camp, in that they want to offer "how-to" classes, rather than theoretical classes, so we would really need to have an accomplished dream-sharer as instructor, one who can confidently transfer his ability to willing students... would that be you?

Interesting question, would that be me. I dunno. Honestly, I'm unfamiliar with the term "accomplished dream-sharer". I don't even know how I'd measure or define the term. Obviously, it is desirable to have experts in the field do the teaching. The issue is I don't think DV has an expert in the field for this. Though we might! I don't know everyone, but I do know I don't see this topic brought up for serious (academic) discussion. What I had in mind was working with multiple people who had expertise in various areas so that the knowledge-base wouldn't be restricted to one person, one perspective, one approach, or one method of teaching because not all students are the same. For an experimental area of dreaming, I think having more than one instructor would be beneficial.

The class itself would definitely be a how-to.

Originally Posted by Sageous

As I said, that would be fine with me too, but by offering such a class you might run the risk of "students" spending their time arguing about whether dream-sharing exists at all, and demanding proof of that from their professor before discussing anything else about the subject, to the point that the interesting and valuable stuff you suggest teaching gets ignored.

Arguments are a great place for learning to happen. The issue of proof is always a fun argument. For the class itself, it shouldn't require anyone to believe shared dreaming is possible. That's not the objective of the course. Just like lucid dreaming doesn't attempt to prove people can control their dreams. Both are merely ideas to explore further, for those who carry that desire. It's not my goal to change beliefs. It's my goal to put people in a position where they can choose whether or not they want to take advantage of an opportunity. It's important that resources are made available, and it's up to the individuals to decide whether they want to use those resources.

Originally Posted by Sageous

tl;dr: Would this be a "how-to" course for shared dreaming? If so, can you confidently provide the necessary "Been there, done that," credibility so that your students can both accept your words and aspire to your example? Or would this class simply be a survey about shared-dreaming, with no expectation of learning how to do it?

tl;dr: Yes, it's a "how-to" course for shared dreaming. I am credible, but not popular. Overall, I know this comes down to what DV wants and what I can offer. If those two aspects are not aligned, then it's a no-go. But if they are...

Interesting response; thanks! Some quick notes:

I was in no way questioning your credentials, RedKali, and I apologize if you got that impression. I really don't care much about (anybody's) academic qualifications or personal life-story details either. The credibility I was talking about was more along the lines of creating an initial impression in your students (or colleagues, as it were) that would confirm not only that shared dreaming can be done, but that doing it would be more likely if they took the course.

And no, I absolutely did not mean "popularity" instead of "credibility." Popularity did not even enter my mind; I really don't care if I'm well-liked, and I don't think the other course instructors took on their classes because of their fan bases. To me that is absurd. When I started the DVA WILD class I was pretty much unknown here, and the class has gone quite well; popularity was meaningless from the start in my case, and probably still is (given my opinions and willingness to disagree/contradict, I would bet I still am not all that popular). I really don't think popularity carries much weight, if the class is well presented, and I honestly think that starting a class because you're popular is not the best way to begin, by any measure.

Also, though you've apparently been on DV longer than I have, I am not familiar with the DVA classes that are run by irresponsible people with large fan bases; they are generally run by thoughtful people with a lot of experience and excellent knowledge bases. I doubt any of them were chosen -- or were successful -- out of popularity, but I can assure you that their success is based on their credibility. Maybe you were thinking of a different website?

So, no, I did not mean popularity instead of credibility, and do not agree with your suggestion that I should mean that; I am just not that cynical.

On another note: "Accomplished shared dreamer" didn't seem like a term to me, because the phrase means exactly what it implies: that your students would understand -- more from your words and advice than from some curriculum vitae -- that the teacher(s) of this course came from a position of validity, and would not just be repeating stuff they read somewhere. That validity comes in the form, as I said, of having been there (From what you've written, I have a feeling you will have no trouble projecting that validity to your students, BTW). In other words, an accomplished shared dreamer is nothing more than a person who has actual experience in the realm of shared dreaming; there really was no deeper meaning intended.

For what it's worth, if you do go ahead with this course, I would probably be interested in participating. The metaphysical implications of shared dreaming have always intrigued me, and if I can learn anything that would further open the door to its existence and navigation, I would definitely have gained something good.

Good luck!

I think we see popularity differently. All of the instructors are popular: meaning they are supported. Either supported by already being a Dream Guide (or in some other position of authority) or having an established fan base. Many are in a position where they are supported, hence, they are popular. The other stuff you mention about fan bases seems like you mention them in a negative manner, that's not what I meant. It's not a negative thing to have a fan base, it likely means that person (with the fan base) is trusted and appreciated by their peers. Those are good traits for an instructor to have. Being popular can be a useful method to begin a class--but it can also be detrimental, it just depends on how that individual utilizes their fan base.

It still seems like you're confusing credibility with popularity, though I recognize you're saying you haven't--so I will take you at your word.

It's interesting you don't care about credibility or experience--because by what other means are people to be measured? Lol. What people know and what they can do. This may be a bit short-sighted on my end, but I really don't know what else to judge people by...perhaps by their creativity or willingness to engage? I don't know, those two features are difficult to measure. Maybe by their potential? I'm getting off track here...

Lol. You're not that cynical, but I didn't mean that in a cynical manner, but I see how you may perceive my statements toward you as cynical... (I'm really trying to make this as least confusing as possible). Maybe popularity just has a bad association in your mind, but I don't mean to say those who are teaching DV classes only got there by being popular (that seemed to be the assumption you were making). What I meant was what I said:

Popularity makes more sense. You don't want to invite people into leadership roles when the community doesn't know who they are. There's a high-risk of letting irresponsible people become too involved. Also, my account reflects practically no postings on these forums. I'm not involved in the forum community, so there's no fan-base, no established trust, and most do not know who I am.

That was not me implying other instructors are irresponsible or got there due to their popularity. But, since we're on that topic, I certainly think some people have taken courses from those they know and like. That doesn't seem absurd to me. I take classes for those reasons. Not here, but in school, with teachers I know and enjoy learning from. Why wouldn't people take courses from those they enjoy? I don't comprehend why this would be absurd to you. Which is ... somewhat interesting on its own level. I respect your belief that people were not chosen or successful out of popularity. I disagree. Popularity plays a part in success and during a selection process. For some, it may not play a big part, for others, it might. Either way, it's not a bad thing. It merely means they are known and established and have done well with what they were previously doing--it would be reasonable to provide those people with more opportunity. Now, yes, there's also a skill and knowledge component build into their success and selection, sure. But to say popularity has nothing to do for some of them is unrealistic.

Now, I really hope that if the course did get the go-ahead that you'd still be interested in participating after our attempts to clarify things for one another, lol. You likely would be the best balance for me, to keep me in check, because I do tend to assume people understand me. However, that's not always the case. I think we would benefit from each other.

Um, all condescending LOL's aside:

Originally Posted by RedKali

I think we see popularity differently. All of the instructors are popular: meaning they are supported. Either supported by already being a Dream Guide (or in some other position of authority) or having an established fan base. Many are in a position where they are supported, hence, they are popular. The other stuff you mention about fan bases seems like you mention them in a negative manner, that's not what I meant. It's not a negative thing to have a fan base, it likely means that person (with the fan base) is trusted and appreciated by their peers. Those are good traits for an instructor to have. Being popular can be a useful method to begin a class--but it can also be detrimental, it just depends on how that individual utilizes their fan base.

This would mean that I should not have been a DVA instructor, because I was far from popular, and had an extremely limited fan base.

It still seems like you're confusing credibility with popularity, though I recognize you're saying you haven't--so I will take you at your word.

Gosh thanks.

Actually, I do appreciate that, because I was not, and am not, confusing popularity with credibility; the two are very different things, and it is a bit annoying that you think I don't understand that difference. Yes, popularity can certainly be a good base for leadership, or for guaranteeing a decent class size, but popularity will not guarantee credibility or quality. That was my point, from the beginning; I have no problem with the definition of popularity, or the use of the term.

I would also really appreciate it if you read what I wrote, rather than assume an ability to read my mind or measure my intelligence from afar. Yes, assuming that I do not understand what popularity might be is a bit insulting, especially when you pair that with your complete disregard for what I clearly said about credibility in the first (and second) place:

It's interesting you don't care about credibility or experience--because by what other means are people to be measured? Lol. What people know and what they can do. This may be a bit short-sighted on my end, but I really don't know what else to judge people by...perhaps by their creativity or willingness to engage? I don't know, those two features are difficult to measure. Maybe by their potential? I'm getting off track here...

Sigh... if you actually read my posts, rather than apparently judging them from a great distance or high mountaintop (do I insert a LOL here?), you may have noticed that the whole point of my initial post was about establishing credibility from the get-go; I obviously care about it. My point was that credibility wasn't measured by a good CV (I never even implied that), but that the course should have credibility -- that the students should accept that some authority and truth underscores the course (and its instructor(s)) before the course begins.

Basically, and again, I was saying that shared-dreaming is a potentially difficult course to teach because it almost foundationally lacks credibility (i.e., it to date has not been proven as an actual event, and no established techniques exist that can guarantee decent -- or any -- results). I really don't give a crap if the instructor has a psychology degree, is straight out of high school, or has a fabulous fan base; if he can provide credibility through the context of the course and his own experience with, and knowledge of, shared-dreaming, that would be enough for me.

Lol. You're not that cynical, but I didn't mean that in a cynical manner, but I see how you may perceive my statements toward you as cynical... (I'm really trying to make this as least confusing as possible). Maybe popularity just has a bad association in your mind, but I don't mean to say those who are teaching DV classes only got there by being popular (that seemed to be the assumption you were making). What I meant was what I said:

Gosh, thanks again for your repeated attempts for making this as least confusing as possible; sorry I'm so simple. Again and finally, popularity does not have a bad association in my mind; assuming that you are unqualified to teach a course because you don't have lots of DV forum posts or a fan base is what I found absurd. If you know what you are talking about, I highly doubt that the people here will care how popular you are... you might need to elevate your opinion of DV members, I think.

That was not me implying other instructors are irresponsible or got there due to their popularity. But, since we're on that topic, I certainly think some people have taken courses from those they know and like. That doesn't seem absurd to me. I take classes for those reasons. Not here, but in school, with teachers I know and enjoy learning from. Why wouldn't people take courses from those they enjoy? I don't comprehend why this would be absurd to you. Which is ... somewhat interesting on its own level. I respect your belief that people were not chosen or successful out of popularity. I disagree. Popularity plays a part in success and during a selection process. For some, it may not play a big part, for others, it might. Either way, it's not a bad thing. It merely means they are known and established and have done well with what they were previously doing--it would be reasonable to provide those people with more opportunity. Now, yes, there's also a skill and knowledge component build into their success and selection, sure. But to say popularity has nothing to do for some of them is unrealistic.

Okay, you're officially obsessed with popularity (insert another LOL here?). I am not. I am interested in quality. If you are the most popular person on the forum, but didn't know a wit about shared-dreaming, I would not want you to teach the course.

You now what? Never mind. I should have walked away from this conversation a long time ago.

Now, I really hope that if the course did get the go-ahead that you'd still be interested in participating after our attempts to clarify things for one another, lol. You likely would be the best balance for me, to keep me in check, because I do tend to assume people understand me. However, that's not always the case. I think we would benefit from each other.

I will probably not bother with the course at this point, because, honestly, the brief snapshot I've had of your condescension and apparent disinterest in reading what I wrote (as opposed to consistently clinging to what you thought I wrote, regardless of my clarifications) tells me that taking the course (or working with you to teach it -- yes, I probably am qualified, and likely carry some credibility, if not popularity), would be a difficult, unwelcome, experience... I really don't feel like being a balance to keep you in check; I would much rather you made an effort to stop assuming that people understand you (a very bad characteristic for a teacher, in my opinion), plus perhaps an effort to assume that people might be telling you something that doesn't match your initial assumptions.

I'm done here. Good luck with your course, regardless; it is still a good idea.

To the mods: advance apologies for my tone. I will never figure out how I get drawn into these things.

Well this is what I get for taking too long to reply to the outline!

First of all, thank you Sageous for picking up the ball I dropped there. I will say that the discussion of credibility vs popularity is a tangled briar patch I'm not really interested in. However, shared dreaming is both credible and popular. I personally don't believe in the subject, but loads of DV members and even some staff do, and have done so over the many years I've been here.

How the crap one would teach this, RedKali, I have no freaking idea. But you have more than defended your desire to get a class going on the topic. And Sageous, in spite of your tone or RedKali's condescension, you are the perfect seasoned DVA professor to properly monitor the course. You can pop in every now and then to make sure condescending and/or disbelieving arguments are at a dull roar.

If there are no major objections from forum or DVA staff, then this class is ready to start.

Sageous.

Whoa.

I think your perception of my tone is greatly inaccurate and I'm sorry if how I communicated with you was received badly. My 'lol's were an attempt to personalize and find humor in the entire absurdity of the discussion. It kinda went from a 2 in intensity to a 10 and I'm not entirely sure I understand how that happened either. But rest assured, it was not my intent to be a nag (insert any other descriptive here). You posed concerns, I wanted to take them seriously and reply. I did. Maybe because we're doing this in text things got lost in translation. I thought you brought up very good points and I wanted to discuss them. I see now that you've taken offense at much of what I said, but you should know I wasn't arguing with you in my attempt to comprehend your position on various things.

If this comes up for you regularly, maybe there's another way to supplement this text/forum stuff. I'm not trying to be abrasive or argumentative, in fact I love discussing ideas and how to implement them better. So this was GOOD for me.

All this crap aside, that got excessively out of hand, if it helps you if I kept the lols out, I can. I didn't realize they bothered you or you found them condescending (because alienating people is entirely unhelpful, especially when asking for help).

I would like your help Sageous.

You offer me something valuable in terms of being more realistic and practical. I understand if you want nothing to do with me if you find me horribly annoying and condescending, but I hope you'll look past the initial miscommunication and see that I'm not trying to be a total bitch. If I were, I wouldn't be condescending--I would tell you honestly how I felt, so that there would be no room for miscommunication. I'm not spiteful, I'm not going to hold a grudge just because we disagree. I appreciate that we disagree and if you are willing to explain why you disagree, then that's something I can better accommodate. In fact, I just may improve upon my delivery method to specifically cater to your individual preferences. I only ask that you not assume I'm taking personal jabs at you, because I'm not like that. If I think you're an ass, I'll tell you. I can be an ass, and I apologize for that when it comes up. We're human, I'm not trying to make life more difficult for you.

Will you help me, Sageous?

and thank you OpheliaBlue for the update


Edit: I just looked over my post (again) trying to figure out what triggered your follow-up post. I can see how some of those lols could be misinterpreted. I've seen some people make snide remarks and use lols to be condescending, so it does happen, I've seen it, and find it horribly annoying too. I would like people to flat out tell me they disagree and why, instead of using lols to avoid saying anything rude or too direct. I figured since I told you what and why I disagreed, it would be okay to attempt to personalize the exchange--to bring it out of academic focus and into a more humane realm of discussion. But I see in doing that, you took it another direction.

Just to share, I'm typically very laid back and find humor in most things. When discussions get iffy, I try to lighten the mood. I also enjoy using very informal language online, like I wanted to use the xD and the xP and the in my posts because that makes sense to me. However, the topic was important so I refrained. I see that I may have taken you too seriously too, and part of that is I don't know you well enough to understand how you communicate. Hopefully that changes.

Class pending reply to PM about alt account.

RedKali:

Fair enough, and enough said as well.

Will I help you? I would like to, but I can make no guarantees. This is because time for me is at a premium these days. The least I could do, though, is join the class and try my best to keep you on your toes with questions or suggestions as things move along.

But will you want my help, truly? I think that's a fair question, actually, given that I don't adhere to very many of the popular notions of shared dreaming. Most of my opinions are buried in other people's threads (I start very few of my own), but here is a thread of mine that sort of covers my take on the phenomenon... you might want to check it out.

At any rate, I've already forgotten our first clumsy steps, and look forward to being involved somehow with your class, if I can.

From earlier threads on this site, it's hard to get two people to even agree on what "shared dreaming" means. Can you give a specific, detailed description of what you think "shared dreaming" means, with some examples of scenarios that you would and would not consider to be shared dreaming?

Some of the descriptions of shared dreaming indicate that you could "share" a dream that happens to someone on a different night. Such as, I dream I am with my wife on Monday, tell her about the dream, and then she has a similar dream. SHARED DREAM! Which, to me, is doubtful (to be polite). I second FryingMan, and would like to know what the definition of "shared dream" is, and then how to have some. Because that would be really cool.

Setting a go-to definition seems like a good idea to me, and a good foundation for the course -- even if the definition chosen is unique only to the course and doesn't reflect all of the variety of definitions floating around out there.

Maybe you could just make it a simple, sort of blanket definition? Perhaps this: a shared dream occurs when two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, with each well aware of the presence of the other.

Or maybe something else?

I love the idea of defining shared dreaming; it's necessary. That's something that must be clarified for people because I hear the term used in various ways. I really appreciate Sageous' definition: a shared dream occurs when two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, with each well aware of the presence of the other.

That's the general idea I'm going for. Even this version could be simple enough: a shared dream occurs when two individuals experience the same dream.

The only difference I notice between the two statements is awareness of presence....which is an interesting point. Consider this: some dreamers lack form in dreams, yet they still observe events within a dream. If two people observe the same series of events, in the correct sequence, and accurately describe the elements involved in the dream, yet neither notice one another.... should that be considered a shared dream? They were both clearly observing the same dream, those details add up, but they just didn't see/notice their partner. Certainly something to think about--and feedback is welcome.

Personally, I don't like the day-after dreams when people have read a dream and then dream of it. If we're going to focus on shared dreaming, I'd rather just aim for the unexpected and unplanned shared dream instead of inducing a shared dream (accidental or otherwise). Also, Sageous I like that you included "similar dream", but that might need some clarification. I don't want people to think just because two people shared a dream of being on a beach that it makes it a shared dream. However, if two people start in a dirty house, fly around town, see the same landmarks, speak to the same people, but for one a tsunami hits and another a tornado hits--that would be considered similar enough to call a shared dream. So in some instances the "similar" helps as it allows for variances in perception. My only concern is I don't want people to over-generalize dreams and think a shared dream occurs when there aren't enough shared elements.

I don't think we could put a number on how many shared elements must occur before a dream can be described as being "shared". Would it be enough for two people to notice one another in a single location? I suppose if both were able to accurately describe the location in a fair amount of detail. Sometimes people try swapping keywords and that's usually never effective; part of this is the portions of the mind which utilize waking memory (which is what was used when coming up with the fantastic idea to swap keywords) is asleep when dreaming. Being lucid awakens the prefrontal cortex, which helps with even remembering you wanted to swap keywords, but then the struggle revolves around remembering the word itself. When you're that far lucid, waking becomes a serious concern. It's so much more practical to have a dreaming experience and then recall it. Even remembering to keep an eye out for a partner can be challenging. Speaking of that, I don't think people need to be lucid to have a shared dream. The elements (which are still being discussed) of a shared dream can be met without having to be lucid. Though! Lucidity certainly can be helpful.

FryingMan, did this answer your question?

Sageous, I haven't had a chance to read more than a few posts in that thread but I will soon. It'll be good to get a feel for what others may be critical of regarding the topic, which is helpful. I'm coming from one end of this so knowing where the issues are helps me bridge the two ends. I know there are many who haven't had a shared dream and there are even more who don't believe it's possible. So having a better grasp on specific concerns is great. I don't mind the questioning, critique anything and everything I put up, it'll let me know which areas need tweaking. Thanks for letting me know your time is limited so you can't be overly involved, and I won't ask you to do anything too time-intensive. Whatever feedback and comments you have is great and appreciated.

Originally Posted by RedKali

FryingMan, did this answer your question?

It's a start, but if you could restate a full definition without the questions and wondering and supposing. Also, you didn't really specify clear time (simultaneity) constraints.

If you want to say "unexpected and unplanned" to avoid any hint of incubation, then how will you manage a group of people working together to have shared dreams? That's incubation already right there. "Joe and Jill are working together to have shared dreams, and they each saw a dream about each other!" How do you distinguish between "dreaming buddies" who frequently dream about each other and a "true shared dream?" And while you say you don't want to overly quantify "similar enough," I think the whole subject hinges on precisely that. Too specific, and "shared dreaming" may never happen (which may beg the question of whether or not it exists at all), too general, and it's meaningless.

Gah, you're right, I did leave out the time parameters.

To be frank, shared dreams don't have to occur at the same time; there are ways to access a specific point in dreaming, even after the dream has occurred. Unfortunately, this gets too technical and over-complicates the topic, so I will stay far away from that aspect in regard to this course.

Time-wise, a shared dream should occur sometime during the same night. For people who are connecting from different time zones, this could be concern as not everyone has the same sleeping habits (even if they are in the same time zone). Side-note, I've noticed some people dream of their partners waking lives when one person was asleep and the other was awake. While that won't qualify as a shared dream, it certainly places an emphasis on both partners needing to be asleep at the same time. To make it as simple as possible, it would be best to say the dream must occur while both partners are asleep at the same time.

Updated definition: a shared dream occurs when two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, simultaneously.

What defines the same dream aspect is still yet to be determined. This gets into the realm of qualitative data analysis which science still struggles with. There's no one besides the dreamers who will determine if a shared dream occurs, so there won't be inter-raters/observers involved for the purpose of the class.

Example:

Jack and Jill have a dream of one another. Jack dreams of being inside a car and has the thought, "The door will fly off." Jill dreams of driving a car and has the same thought, "The car door will fly off." The two cars collide, the door flies off. Jill saw Jack in a blue Prius, turns out Jack remembers being in his uncle's blue SUV. I've known some people who call this a shared dream. I've known others would refuse to call this a shared dream due to the difference in vehicles. From the psychological perspective, there could be a few things at play. One, maybe Jill doesn't know vehicles well and went with what was closest to what she saw (she may not know how to identify vehicles). Two, maybe Jack thought the car reminded him of a car he used to ride in often and so he made an error by being a subjective observer.

Ideally, everyone learns how to be an objective observer or participant. That's a difficult skill to employ on a regular basis because we all have our personal histories. The key is just to become aware of how our perception is influenced, both psychologically and biologically.

For the course, I don't want it to focus only on finding dream partners and doing solely that. Practicing how to be more objective helps to get everyone on the same page. I would prefer to let everyone decide what they consider a shared dream and sometimes two partners may disagree on whether they had a shared dream. Everyone has their own guidelines for what they consider a shared dream and I don't want to restrict the experience by limiting what qualifies or what doesn't. It's not a "yes" it happened, or a "no" it didn't. It falls on a spectrum. There are some dreamers who can have entire conversations in dreams, and both recall those in full detail. These people have a better memory and likely a higher overall awareness--and there other dreamers who consider a shared dream on a much smaller scale. It's more about skill development than it is a competition and each person/team should set their own goals.

Curious, what are you thoughts, still too vague? If it is, how could it be defined better without it being too restrictive? I want to avoid de-motivating participants by creating a nearly impossible task for those in the beginner-intermediate skill levels.

I can't still determine what you're proposing as a definition so I guess it's still vague IMO. I see in your last message these points:

* the dream must occur while both partners are asleep at the same time
* two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, simultaneously
* What defines the same dream aspect is still yet to be determined
* everyone decide what they consider a shared dream

Earlier there was "unexpected and unplanned" (to avoid confusing simple incubation with shared dreaming), is that off the table?

edit: if it's more about skill development, in observation, perception, and communication per your syllabus, why not just focus on those specifically? Why include the difficult or impossible to pin down notions of sharing and sameness? Especially if each person will individually determine the same-ness or shared-ness of any particular dream?

RedKali: I took too long to post this, as you seemed to have moved on, but I hope you'll consider it anyway, because it might help with offering explanations or possibilities to curious students:

Originally Posted by RedKali

The only difference I notice between the two statements is awareness of presence....which is an interesting point. Consider this: some dreamers lack form in dreams, yet they still observe events within a dream. If two people observe the same series of events, in the correct sequence, and accurately describe the elements involved in the dream, yet neither notice one another.... should that be considered a shared dream? They were both clearly observing the same dream, those details add up, but they just didn't see/notice their partner. Certainly something to think about--and feedback is welcome.

No, I don't think that "If two people observe the same series of events, in the correct sequence, and accurately describe the elements involved in the dream, yet neither notice one another," that ought to be considered a shared dream. There are other things, perhaps even more likely things, that can make dreams similar, or cause them to be remembered as similar.

One thing I've often noticed in (usually breathless) accounts of shared dreams like this is that the two dream-sharers are almost invariably involved in very similar waking-lives. They may be family members, close friends, or in intimate partnerships, have closely shared dream goals, or something else that causes them to have very similar life experiences and attitudes. So there is an excellent chance that they are generating very similar waking-life experience, like day residue, expectation, possibly even thought patterns or perceptual preferences/biases as well. This proximity of experience could lead to unshare dreams that seem the same; even, perhaps, to the degree you describe above, RedKali. Though this similarity is certainly a sort of sharing in itself, I'm not sure if it's the sort of dream-sharing we're interested in teaching here.

The same goes for planned or anticipated shared-dreams. Two people hell-bent on having a shared dream with each other might very likely incubate the same sort of dream, so that when they report to each other the next day it isn't hard to find things that match...even if nothing does: I can't tell you how many times I've heard or read reports of shared dreams where each dream has nothing to do with the other, but the two excited dreamers find or invent all sorts of things that in their minds surely prove they were sharing a dream.

I think that, since dreams are essentially projections (literally projections, in dream-sharing, I suppose) created by an individual person's mind, the presence of that mind ought to be noticeable when it encounters the presence of your own mind during a dream. In other words, I think that what you are really sharing in a shared-dream is a sort of meeting of minds (or individual presences, perhaps), with the dream scene itself being secondary. In a sense, the presence of another mind in a dream would precede matching imagery, with that similar or recognizable imagery forming only after one dreamer begins paying attention to another dreamer's presence.

For instance, a shared-dream might start with the appearance of, say, a curious point of light on the horizon on your dream: you sense something different in it, something that is not you, so you focus on it. Your attention on that light brings your mind into closer sync with it, and eventually that point will expand into something more elaborate, perhaps even a new dream scene, that assures you that you are not alone in the dream, and allows you to communicate through imagery or words with the other presence. Which brings me to another point:

You wouldn't need to see an identifiable dream body of your dream-sharing partner to know she is present, either. Indeed, given that we really aren't built as television transmitters, if dream-sharing occurs at all it very likely does not include an ability to tell your dream-sharing partner through transmitted imagery what exactly you look like, or even what you wish to look like. Instead, your presence will appear as a construct created by your partner's own dreaming mind, and that construct will very likely, at least initially, not be a facsimile of you -- or anybody; a "receiver's" dreaming mind might initially produce you as, say, a fire hydrant, or perhaps an angry sloth... the construct created could be anything, which is all the more reason that acknowledged presence is more important than shared imagery. Later, after communication has begun, you and your partner's avatars might start forming into something more recognizable, though even then you will likely appear much different in the dream than you do in waking life.

So, and as a tl;dr:, I guess for me presence precedes similar imagery in a shared dream, and, while shared presence (when noticed) cannot be mistaken for a shared dream, imagery can, no matter how similar it may be.


Also, and almost as an aside:

Speaking of that, I don't think people need to be lucid to have a shared dream. The elements (which are still being discussed) of a shared dream can be met without having to be lucid. Though! Lucidity certainly can be helpful.

I think lucidity is not only helpful, but may be may be an imperative for successful shared-dreaming, and I do so for a singular, if odd reason: The mechanics of shared-dream are impossible, to me, unless we are all sharing our dreams all the time.

It makes much more sense to me that our dreaming consciousness exists, space&time-free, as an individual thread in a great fabric of say, collective consciousness or perhaps thought energy, where every thread is in constant contact with every other thread, and when dream-sharing we are not finding our partners as much as we are singling out their individual presence --their thread -- among the weave of dreaming thought, than it does we that are somehow magically able to find someone (even across time-zones of physical world) among the minds of billions of sleeping people.

If all our dreams are somehow connected in an as-yet undiscovered metaphysical matrix, it would be safe to say that, by any definition, we're all dream-sharing every time we dream. We just don't know that it is happening, either because we are hard-wired to ignore it as a sort of anti-confusion defense mechanism, or due possibly to the psychic strength our own dreams tending to overwhelm the influence of other people's passing dreams; or maybe we just don't think of it at the time, just like we don't think of so many other things when not lucid.

The presence of lucidity, though, allows an opportunity to pay attention to our dreamworld, to consciously (if metaphorically) examine that weave of dreamers to spot the dreams of our dream-sharing partner, and also to acknowledge when our partner is looking for us.

So, in effect, if dream-sharing can happen at all it is just as likely that we are all sharing our dreams all the time, but we don't notice it during the dream, which sort of makes such sharing irrelevant from a consciousness perspective. With lucidity, though, we can learn to pay attention to the cosmic conversation and both seek out desired individuals or make ourselves receptive to contact by individuals.

This sounded a lot better in my head, and I know it is meaningless to the discussion, if not altogether meaningless, but I'll leave it up anyway... maybe one day it will matter.

In other words, I think that what you are really sharing in a shared-dream is a sort of meeting of minds (or individual presences, perhaps), with the dream scene itself being secondary.

I agree with this. If we think about it, dream imagery is going to be more or less unstable in the majority of dreamers, and just because we are "sharing" a dream, does not mean we are going to see the same appearances. Even during our waking life, our perception of the world is so heavily influenced by our own hardware and software (sense consciousnesses and thinking--views, opinions, etc.) that we often don't "see" the same things as those around us, even though we are most certainly "sharing" the dream in waking life. In a dream, since we are disconnected from the stability of the sense faculties, we are relying entirely on our mental consciousness to "tell" us what it is we "see." The question is, can our mental consciousness and sense of self actually contact another entity, or are we just running the maze?

Which means that most certainly in a shared dream there has to be this meeting of the mind, and in some sense, we may even be sharing the same mental space for the duration of the event, or at least co-creating a shared mental space, in a much more dramatic way than waking life.

The presence of lucidity, though, allows an opportunity to pay attention to our dreamworld, to consciously (if metaphorically) examine that weave of dreamers to spot the dreams of our dream-sharing partner, and also to acknowledge when our partner is looking for us.

I really think this is paramount to the endeavor. Without lucidity, we lack the objective awareness to determine whether or not a dream was "shared," or whether or not we were deceived by our--for lack of a better term--"local" projections. In any case, even if we meet the mind our target, the only information we are going to have about them is through a projection--but possibly a shared, co-created one. Also, with lucidity, there is the possibility of leaving our "local time zone" and reaching out to other dreaming minds. In this case, I think there would need to be some way to direct awareness to the mind we are trying to reach, which I think would be a real challenge. Not impossible, but how do you reach a mind?

Furthermore, I think the possibility of self-deception is high, especially for explorers seeking specifically to share dreams. So there needs to be rigorous methods of proof in order to determine whether or not a specific event occurred (if one is interested in that). On the other hand, it is possible that one oneironaut will be certain that "something more" than a lucid dream occurred, while the other dreaming party may have no idea at all.

And finally, there is also the possibility of knowing the contents of another person's dream, but with no other contact--like remote viewing. That would indicate a kind of shared space, although perhaps not what we are looking for.

I'm interested. Let's start the show.

I am very interested in this, and would be willing to do some exploration myself.

Originally Posted by FryingMan

I can't still determine what you're proposing as a definition so I guess it's still vague IMO. I see in your last message these points:

* the dream must occur while both partners are asleep at the same time
* two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, simultaneously
* What defines the same dream aspect is still yet to be determined
* everyone decide what they consider a shared dream

Earlier there was "unexpected and unplanned" (to avoid confusing simple incubation with shared dreaming), is that off the table?

edit: if it's more about skill development, in observation, perception, and communication per your syllabus, why not just focus on those specifically? Why include the difficult or impossible to pin down notions of sharing and sameness? Especially if each person will individually determine the same-ness or shared-ness of any particular dream?

This is the current working definition: a shared dream occurs when two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, simultaneously.

The unexpected and unplanned are ideal conditions. It's just not practical--if we're all part of the group, all reading and planning to have shared dreams, there's going to be some sort of incubation happening. Can that be minimized? Yes. How? By not discussing what's to occur in a dream. If two people go into a dreaming night with just the intent to dream of the other person, this leaves a lot room for anything to occur. There should be some direction, to increase success, but not too much to incubate a specific dream. What sounds interesting is to pick someone to dream about (from the class) and NOT share who we've chosen. Then just post recall from that. There are a few different ways to go about it, but that will rule out shared sleep schedules which can be helpful. That's an idea I'd like to try though (not telling people beforehand), likely to be built into the course in some form.

Observation, perception, and communication WILL be focused on specifically. It's important to still include the difficult task of defining a shared dream because it serves as a guidepost. It doesn't have to be perfect, but there should be something. Example: let's swap out shared dreaming for diet. A healthy diet should be defined for someone who is becoming more health conscious. Currently, that someone may not have a healthy diet, but wants to move closer to one. Defining what a healthy diet is important, but the personal goal setting will not reflect the healthy diet immediately; instead it's a work in progress. Some people start out very close to being healthy, so don't have many adjustments to make. Others have terrible eating habits, so their focus will be on the small successes as they move toward their end-goal. Basically, people should understand the larger concept and this is done by defining the larger concept. Then people decide what's most appropriate for them as they move toward the larger concept.

Originally Posted by Sageous

RedKali: I took too long to post this, as you seemed to have moved on, but I hope you'll consider it anyway . . .

Nah, I always come back to ideas and of course I'll consider what you've said here. You mentioned you think shared dreams should require the awareness of another person. This goes back to my stance of, it would be nice, but it's not the only option. Specifically, there have been people who have dreams where they're observing someone else--but that someone else never recalls that person being in the dream. Yet, the observer accurately describes the entire dream. Should that be considered a shared dream? Maybe not for the purposes of this class, so you're right. On the other hand, it is a shared dream for the observer (as they were in the dream and sharing it with that person, even if that person was not aware). Though it is NOT a shared dream for the person being observed. Rather, the more technical manner to phrase it could be: it was a shared dream for the observer, but the person observed was not aware it was a shared dream. It's gets a little tricky for some scenarios. To make it simple, it seems easier to start with being aware of others; I just don't want people to think that is the hard and fast rule for shared dreaming.

Originally Posted by Sageous

. . . So there is an excellent chance that they are generating very similar waking-life experience, like day residue, expectation, possibly even thought patterns or perceptual preferences/biases as well. This proximity of experience could lead to unshare dreams that seem the same; even, perhaps, to the degree you describe above, RedKali. Though this similarity is certainly a sort of sharing in itself, I'm not sure if it's the sort of dream-sharing we're interested in teaching here.

YES! I know precisely what you mean and this IS a concern. It would be ideal to pair up with near-strangers of similar skill level. It makes it easier to differentiate between each awareness....and this becomes more important when trying to figure out whose dream a person is within. If two people lead very similar lives, then dreaming will be similar and that's not going to make it easy when picking apart the details.

Originally Posted by Sageous

The same goes for planned or anticipated shared-dreams. Two people hell-bent on having a shared dream with each other might very likely incubate the same sort of dream, so that when they report to each other the next day it isn't hard to find things that match...even if nothing does: I can't tell you how many times I've heard or read reports of shared dreams where each dream has nothing to do with the other, but the two excited dreamers find or invent all sorts of things that in their minds surely prove they were sharing a dream.

I agree here too. I think for the very inexperienced or the ones who are over-excited about the process, there should be external feedback provided to help these individuals be more accurate and realistic.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I think that, since dreams are essentially projections (literally projections, in dream-sharing, I suppose) created by an individual person's mind, the presence of that mind ought to be noticeable when it encounters the presence of your own mind during a dream. In other words, I think that what you are really sharing in a shared-dream is a sort of meeting of minds (or individual presences, perhaps), with the dream scene itself being secondary. In a sense, the presence of another mind in a dream would precede matching imagery, with that similar or recognizable imagery forming only after one dreamer begins paying attention to another dreamer's presence. For instance, a shared-dream might start with the appearance of, say, a curious point of light on the horizon on your dream: you sense something different in it, something that is not you, so you focus on it. Your attention on that light brings your mind into closer sync with it, and eventually that point will expand into something more elaborate, perhaps even a new dream scene, that assures you that you are not alone in the dream, and allows you to communicate through imagery or words with the other presence. Which brings me to another point:

Yes. I agree with what you've said here, but this is assuming the dreamer is highly aware of those subtle shifts in surroundings. What you're mentioning are usually subtle fluctuations, a dreamer must be sensitive to those shifts to notice them. Not all dreamers will notice the arrival of a second mind. Not only this, but some minds are very quiet. Some learn how to quiet their internal chatter and some lack a heavy presence.

Originally Posted by Sageous

You wouldn't need to see an identifiable dream body of your dream-sharing partner to know she is present, either. Indeed, given that we really aren't built as television transmitters, if dream-sharing occurs at all it very likely does not include an ability to tell your dream-sharing partner through transmitted imagery what exactly you look like, or even what you wish to look like. Instead, your presence will appear as a construct created by your partner's own dreaming mind, and that construct will very likely, at least initially, not be a facsimile of you -- or anybody; a "receiver's" dreaming mind might initially produce you as, say, a fire hydrant, or perhaps an angry sloth... the construct created could be anything, which is all the more reason that acknowledged presence is more important than shared imagery. Later, after communication has begun, you and your partner's avatars might start forming into something more recognizable, though even then you will likely appear much different in the dream than you do in waking life.

Heh, this is one of more favorite areas I agree, we can come in any form. Our form can be directed by our awareness, but also by the person receiving our awareness. A combination can occur too. Eventually there's another level of recognition which forms, and this level is not based on anything visual. This is a fun area for exploration. I see how presence can mean many things. I'll add that back into the definition now that I better understand what that means.

Originally Posted by Sageous

So, and as a tl;dr:, I guess for me presence precedes similar imagery in a shared dream, and, while shared presence (when noticed) cannot be mistaken for a shared dream, imagery can, no matter how similar it may be.

Heh, that's seems to be how you've made sense of this. I tend to follow that line of reasoning too. Though there are infrequent exceptions.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Also, and almost as an aside:

I think lucidity is not only helpful, but may be may be an imperative for successful shared-dreaming, and I do so for a singular, if odd reason: The mechanics of shared-dream are impossible, to me, unless we are all sharing our dreams all the time.

But aren't we sharing our dreams all the time? global consciousness, right? I'm somewhat kidding. I agree, lucidity is almost-necessary. Small shades of lucidity are generally necessary and for the purpose of the class, I'd be comfortable enough saying it's necessary though, there's more to this than that, but I'm comfortable not getting side-tracked into other ideas xD we have our hands full as it is xD

Originally Posted by Sageous

It makes much more sense to me that our dreaming consciousness exists, space&time-free, as an individual thread in a great fabric of say, collective consciousness or perhaps thought energy, where every thread is in constant contact with every other thread, and when dream-sharing we are not finding our partners as much as we are singling out their individual presence --their thread -- among the weave of dreaming thought, than it does we that are somehow magically able to find someone (even across time-zones of physical world) among the minds of billions of sleeping people.

Personally, I believe we all exist on the dreamplane 24/7. As youve said, it's just a matter of being able to pluck the desired strings to connect directly..Some aspect of us is there. That's terrible though, I don't want to express my personal beliefs as it usually gets in the way of things.

Originally Posted by Sageous

If all our dreams are somehow connected in an as-yet undiscovered metaphysical matrix, it would be safe to say that, by any definition, we're all dream-sharing every time we dream. We just don't know that it is happening, either because we are hard-wired to ignore it as a sort of anti-confusion defense mechanism, or due possibly to the psychic strength our own dreams tending to overwhelm the influence of other people's passing dreams; or maybe we just don't think of it at the time, just like we don't think of so many other things when not lucid.

I think our largest issue is that there is too much available information and our brains are like an old-school processor. Until we figure out how to overclock our cognitive ability, we'll always be limited in our awareness. Fortunately, we're all built with different hardware and I'd like to think small upgrades are generally available. I do think we're all connected. Individual psychic strength directs how well we can maneuver attention. It should be no surprise to you that I have more I'd like to say about this, BUT this is already becoming a very long response xD

Originally Posted by Sageous

The presence of lucidity, though, allows an opportunity to pay attention to our dreamworld, to consciously (if metaphorically) examine that weave of dreamers to spot the dreams of our dream-sharing partner, and also to acknowledge when our partner is looking for us.

I agree....and this is what I'm very much hoping to explore within the scope of the class.

Originally Posted by Sageous

So, in effect, if dream-sharing can happen at all it is just as likely that we are all sharing our dreams all the time, but we don't notice it during the dream, which sort of makes such sharing irrelevant from a consciousness perspective. With lucidity, though, we can learn to pay attention to the cosmic conversation and both seek out desired individuals or make ourselves receptive to contact by individuals.

Oh, we can seek out individuals and make ourselves receptive to contact without lucidity; but yes, it's certainly more difficult without lucidity.

Originally Posted by Sageous

This sounded a lot better in my head, and I know it is meaningless to the discussion, if not altogether meaningless, but I'll leave it up anyway... maybe one day it will matter.

It's not meaningless at all. These ideas are all related to shared dreaming and influence that experience. Being able to identify the various components, even if a bit indirect, is important. Approaching the psychology of any particular dreamer uses the same method. When we communicate with a dreaming partner (in waking and asleep) it's very useful to consider the irrelevant as it has a way of becoming relevant. I'm glad you included the extra.