Thread: A Treatise on Proof

Tl;DR

Well, that took forever. XP

I don't have a helluva lot to add, but there's a few things I'd like to clarify.

The first deals with how memory is handled during lucid dreams. As it turns out, during lucid dreaming, the dorsolateral prefontal cortex has been observed to be active. This is not the case for normal dreams. The reason this is relevant is because that part of the brain deals with working memory--long-term memory. As such, there's biological evidence to support the idea that, yes, lucid dreams are much easier to remember than non-lucid dreams. Of course you'll only remember them as well as you do IWL. So, like O pointed out, mundane stuff isn't likely to stick with you.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Before any account of shared dreaming can be considered scientifically viable, we must first have proven the most basic concept: that human beings can share thoughts/memories/experiences/information, from within their own minds, over a distance. To this point, there is no widely-accepted confirmation of this very basic principle. Without such, any attempt to prove the experience of a shared dream, as more than coincidence, is fundamentally flawed.

This irked me, because it's so blatantly false. The proof is in the words you're reading now. Here I am, sharing my thoughts with you over such a distance. The problem people tend to have when approaching shared dreaming is they go at it with all these preconceived notions, that the act of sharing dreams is somehow paranormal and outside the established laws of physics.

But look, I'm sharing information with you right now. There's no magic going on. This kind of focused interaction, coupled with intention, and like-mindedness, is really all you need for two people to share a similar experience in their dreams.

And as for good evidence not existing, that is also false. There's one publication in particular (published in The Journal of Psychology; Mar94, Vol. 128 Issue 2, p133, 15p) titled "Dream sharing: A case study." that provides strong statistical support for the existence of shared dreaming. I suggest you look it up if you get the chance/care about the subject. If you have access to EBSCOhost you can grab the article from their database.

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

This irked me, because it's so blatantly false. The proof is in the words you're reading now. Here I am, sharing my thoughts with you over such a distance. The problem people tend to have when approaching shared dreaming is they go at it with all these preconceived notions, that the act of sharing dreams is somehow paranormal and outside the established laws of physics.

But look, I'm sharing information with you right now. There's no magic going on. This kind of focused interaction, coupled with intention, and like-mindedness, is really all you need for two people to share a similar experience in their dreams.

And this tends to irk me, because it's a blatant misrepresentation of the most general definition of "Shared Dreaming." You cannot compare sharing thoughts through dreams with sharing information through a computer. To even imply that the two are analogous to each other is...I don't even know a word that I can choose that doesn't seem overly insulting.

When you share information over a computer, you are using established, verified mediums to transmit that information. Your thoughts are traveling through your nervous system, into your fingertips, which are tapping the keys on your computer, which are then converting that information through a man-made network (wireless or otherwise), into another person's computer and onto their screen. This is not the same as what is implied by the concept of shared dreaming, which is simply two people sharing a direct experience - from mind to mind - without that established, verifiable medium.

This is the main thing that upsets me when people try to obscure the meaning of 'shared dreaming' to include similar experiences, in dreams. The most general definition of a shared dream is one in which the consciousness of more than one person are - quite literally - in the same dream, at the same time. Period. Please explain to me how a mind-to-mind connection can be made without having to be conveyed through the body (whether talking, signing, typing, etc).

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

And as for good evidence not existing, that is also false. There's one publication in particular (published in The Journal of Psychology; Mar94, Vol. 128 Issue 2, p133, 15p) titled "Dream sharing: A case study." that provides strong statistical support for the existence of shared dreaming. I suggest you look it up if you get the chance/care about the subject. If you have access to EBSCOhost you can grab the article from their database.

I will certainly do that. As I said before, I have read of evidence for such a thing to exist, but evidence is just that. Evidence is questionable. It is not, in itself, definitive. There is evidence that black holes exist, and yet the entire scientific community is not united on belief of their existence. You might also want to look into Dean Radin and some of the 'successes' his team have had in finding evidence for telepathy and over 'psi' phenomena. I never said evidence was non-existent. (I've even started threads on this very forum, defending such evidence, against skeptics who said evidence didn't exist.) I simply said that there is no widely-accepted, undeniable proof as there is with, say, fire.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And this tends to irk me, because it's a blatant misrepresentation of the most general definition of "Shared Dreaming." You cannot compare sharing thoughts through dreams with sharing information through a computer. To even imply that the two are analogous to each other is...I don't even know a word that I can choose that doesn't seem overly insulting.

I'm not using the general definition because, as you said, there's no reason to give it any credence. And I didn't mean to imply that the two were analogous, since I agree, that's just dumb as all hell.

I was just pointing out that we do have a way to interact over long distances that we can explain, which you have so verily done.

This is the main thing that upsets me when people try to obscure the meaning of 'shared dreaming' to include similar experiences, in dreams. The most general definition of a shared dream is one in which the consciousness of more than one person are - quite literally - in the same dream, at the same time. Period. Please explain to me how a mind-to-mind connection can be made without having to be conveyed through the body (whether talking, signing, typing, etc).

See, this is where the issue is. Your definition of shared dreaming, the one most people use, carries several assumptions. The big one, that is really the fatal flaw, is that the dream exists as a place outside of oneself/as a place where people can meet. For that idea, there is truly no supporting evidence, and as such no reason to believe it.

This is why I feel that definition is flawed. A better alternative, is the one you seemed opposed to: that shared dreaming is simply two people sharing similar dream experiences with overlapping details in both content and plot.

And really, I find this an easier definition to deal with, as, by following that model, all it would take to induce shared dreams is communication beforehand (using the methods we've already talked about) and incubation the night of the attempt. Which, as it turns out, is exactly how a lot of these reported shared dreams occur.

I could go on for awhile, explaining the intricacies of how I consider shared dreaming to be possible using known information, and the numerous flaws with the current model of thought people approach shared dreaming with, but I'm in a bit of a rush right now. Maybe I'll write up a thread for it later. =P

I will certainly do that. As I said before, I have read of evidence for such a thing to exist, but evidence is just that. Evidence is questionable. It is not, in itself, definitive. There is evidence that black holes exist, and yet the entire scientific community is not united on belief of their existence. You might also want to look into Dean Radin and some of the 'successes' they have had in finding evidence for telepathy and over 'psi' phenomena. I never said evidence was non-existent. I said that there is no widely-accepted, undeniable proof as there is with, say, fire.

I mean, empirical statistic analysis conducted on independently recorded dreams is about as close as anyone will come to proving this thing until that dream recording technology comes around. But yeah, I agree, evidence will only take you so far.

Ok. We agree, then. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that two people can share eerily similar dream experiences. I believe I have experienced many of them, myself. However, this is something that is really just having a 'similar dream,' and I don't find it necessary to tack any exaggerated, misleading labels to them (such as the arbitrary use of 'shared dreaming' that you and others might use). One major problem I have with this is that it confuses people - newbies especially. They start seeing people throwing around the concept of 'shared dreaming,' and they begin to think that telepathy is a proven phenomenon. Sharing a dream is much like sharing a cab. You can't 'share' a cab, if you're not both in it, at the same time. To apply such a term to it is to really obscure what's really happening when you are just having 'similar dreams.'

Yeah, I see how it could be confusing. The reason I use the term 'shared dreaming' for this is because that seems to be all shared dreams really are: eerily similar dreams, in which both people were present. The only reason a lot of people tack on the whole telepathy thing is because someone experienced it, wasn't able to readily comprehend and analyze the mechanics behind the experience, and attributed it to something supernatural.

So, from my perspective, the telepathy definition is the real exaggeration. XP

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

So, from my perspective, the telepathy definition is the real exaggeration. XP

Hence why people say "shared dreaming does not exist." You are really doing yourself (and others) a disservice by using such an already-established name (albeit for an unproven phenomenon) for something that isn't even literally what the words describe...

...you should stop. Lol.

Really, it's kind of like saying "Well, I don't believe in supernatural things, so I'm going to call creating fire -with, say, flint rock and gasoline - 'pyrokinesis', since what people normally call 'pyrokinesis' (creating fire with one's mind) does not exist." It's just unnecessarily confusing.

But I don't think the two things are separate.

Here:
- Shared dreaming implies that two or more people share a dream.
- Dreams are nothing more than experiences we have while asleep, so far as we know.
- It logically follows, then, that shared dreaming implies two or more people share an experience while asleep.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

In no way do the words "shared dreaming" imply telepathy. That's just a preconceived notion, and less a definition than an explanation.

Really, my platform is all about shared dreaming. I just don't prescribe to the commonly held notion that telepathy is how the phenomena occurs. My explanation for shared dreaming rests primarily on dream formation, shared schemata, and induction. It's still shared dreaming, as far as I'm concerned; the only difference between what I'm preaching and what they're preaching is in the explanation of the underlying mechanics.



That may have been hard to follow, so I'll phrase my point in another way so I can be sure there aren't any misunderstandings.



"Shared dreaming is telepathy" is not a definition. It's an explanation. To consider it the only way to explain shared dreaming is downright silly. All I offer is a different explanation for the same phenomena. A new way of thinking about things that'll hopefully spark a different kind of debate than simply saying "shared dreaming does not exist."

If anything, what I'm saying is "shared dreaming does not happen the way you say it does."

Which, I feel, is a step forward from the typical rabble you see all over these boards.

I guess that's just not something we are going to agree on, then. I feel that you are unnecessarily complicating a thing that is generally meant to mean something else (real or not), simply because you like the terminology. As I said before, to share something means to actually, both, take part in (or take a part of) a certain thing. How many examples of the word "share" can you find, that don't imply more than one person explicitly having a piece of a whole (not of something similar)? Cloning someone's body and then putting your own consciousness into the clone is not 'sharing a body.' It is 'inhabiting a similar body.'

Share | Define Share at Dictionary.com

What you are talking about is simply a misuse of the word 'share.' If it's something that you want to hold onto, then that's your prerogative, however it is your own, arbitrary definition of 'to share,' and - as I said - it just unnecessarily complicates what could otherwise be a simple conveyance of what you actually mean.

But, hey...don't let me stop you.

Yep!

You're right. By the literal definition, shared dreaming implies two people partake in a single, solitary experience while asleep.

Just a bit of an oversight on my part. XP

Most of my points still stand, however. Such as offering an alternative explanation for what's going on instead of completely denouncing the idea outright. Because these experiences do happen; I just don't think telepathy is to blame.

Still a big thanks for pointing that, that little revelation will definitely change the way I approach the topic. =)

Glad I could help.

(And I do agree on the alternate explanation, btw. )

Thanks for discussing that point with Mzzkc, Oneironaut. While reading, I came up with the same argument that you later used.

I'd like to chip in my two cents on the following statement:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

When you share information over a computer, you are using established, verified mediums to transmit that information. Your thoughts are traveling through your nervous system, into your fingertips, which are tapping the keys on your computer, which are then converting that information through a man-made network (wireless or otherwise), into another person's computer and onto their screen. This is not the same as what is implied by the concept of shared dreaming, which is simply two people sharing a direct experience - from mind to mind - without that established, verifiable medium.

I'm not sure if you read my last post, and from your following posts it seems your argument hasn't been changed, so I'd just like to reiterate a bit.

Yes, everything I quoted above is 100% true. However, I think you're using it as a basis for a fallacious argument. Your argument, as you said before, is this:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Before any account of shared dreaming can be considered scientifically viable, we must first have proven the most basic concept: that human beings can share thoughts/memories/experiences/information, from within their own minds, over a distance. To this point, there is no widely-accepted confirmation of this very basic principle. Without such, any attempt to prove the experience of a shared dream, as more than coincidence, is fundamentally flawed.

Can scientific discovery not be a result of reverse engineering? Say we isolated as many variables as possible while testing shared dreaming and still came up with results that were statistically significant. This may or may not be strong enough evidence to prove the phenomenon (depends on how reproducible the experiment is and the strength of the results themselves, keeping in mind that nothing is ever truly "proven"), but it is evidence nonetheless, and I wouldn't consider it fundamentally flawed because no current scientific theory supports the findings.

Scientific knowledge is accumulated over millennia of study. Today's science is still far from perfect, and assuming every law of reality is accounted for is risky. In fact, new laws may not even be required; we could simply be overlooking a unique interaction between the current ones.

Going back to your fire analogy:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You missed the fact that fire - unlike shared dreaming - does not have to combat concepts like psychological delusion and lack of known, physical possibility, for it to exist. It existed long before us, and could never be mistaken for anything other than fire. As humans, we have no choice but to accept the existence of fire. "Hey, look. That's fire. Right there. There it is." There is no one (with a brain) that could honestly smirk at the statement and say "pfft. That's not fire. Fire doesn't exist." It is not some pyschological concept that our brains could just fool us into believing in.

Shared dreaming, on the other hand, is a(n alleged), neurological event. There is no empirical, undeniable, scientifically-scrutinized proof for it. None. Zero (and I say this as someone who is well-aware of some scientific institutions that have had very interesting results that suggest the possibility of it's existence. But the key words here are "suggest" and "possibility"). You cannot equate shared dreaming with something that does have objective, empirical proof - such as fire. Look at it this way: The scientific community, as a whole, is divided even on whether black holes exist, and there is inconceivably more evidence for black holes than there is of shared dreaming.

Fire DOES have to "have to combat concepts like psychological delusion and lack of known, physical possibility" for us to accept its existence. You simply live in a world that has already rigorously proved it through experience, math, and science. If I lived in a community that happened to never experience fire and did not have scientific reason to believe in it, and you came and told me of it, I wouldn't have any reason to believe you. However, fire is inherently easier to accept because it is more concretely observable and more easily manipulated.

The main difference is that dreaming is at the moment a subjective experience that scientific knowledge cannot yet plumb the depths of, crippled by having to resort to indirect observation. Keep in mind that if it weren't for the fact that eye movement is not paralyzed while dreaming, even lucid dreaming might not be accepted by the scientific community, even though consciousness while dreaming is not such an absurd thought. We simply do not have the technology, skill, or will to test dreaming as rigorously as more obviously practical fields.

It may sound like I accept the validity of shared dreaming. This isn't the case; I have not experienced it myself and am of course skeptical of its existence because scientific theory does not currently accept it. I simply find the amount of anecdotal evidence to be sufficient enough to warrant thorough scientific testing, see no inherent flaw in pursuing its study, and on a more emotional level am a wishful thinker and would like it to exist because of its possible practical and entertaining applications. The same goes for precognitive dreams and time dilation (though I really hope the latter is possible!).

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Lastly, I believe you should be a little more careful about mixing scientifically viable phenomena like lucid dreaming, with 'metaphysical' (highly unproven) phenomena like shared dreaming. It is like trying to put the claim that one can make fire from matches in the same bucket as someone making the claim that they can manipulate fire with their minds.

....Unless of course someone comes along who actually cares about the subject; then apparently shared dreaming fits very nicely into the mix!

Excellent conversation guys, I really think I learned something by reading it.

However, the real problem of it being very difficult to prove shared dreaming to yourself still exists. Doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Sabe2552

Can scientific discovery not be a result of reverse engineering? Say we isolated as many variables as possible while testing shared dreaming and still came up with results that were statistically significant. This may or may not be strong enough evidence to prove the phenomenon (depends on how reproducible the experiment is and the strength of the results themselves, keeping in mind that nothing is ever truly "proven"), but it is evidence nonetheless, and I wouldn't consider it fundamentally flawed because no current scientific theory supports the findings.

In many cases, I would agree with you (and, to a point, I do), but when dealing with matters of the mind, the testing must be miles more rigorous. The reason that (I believe) this is, is because the effects are not something that we can measure, empirically. Any recounts of what one experienced while dreaming has to face things like fuzzy memories, false memories, succeptibility for confirmation bias and things like that. It is for the same reason that psychology is considered by some to not be a 'science.' However, I do agree that, with the right about of testing and verification, we can get - as you say - strong evidence for its existence. So, yah. For the most part, I will stand corrected on that, because (without being too technical), I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Saber2552

Fire DOES have to "have to combat concepts like psychological delusion and lack of known, physical possibility" for us to accept its existence. You simply live in a world that has already rigorously proved it through experience, math, and science. If I lived in a community that happened to never experience fire and did not have scientific reason to believe in it, and you came and told me of it, I wouldn't have any reason to believe you. However, fire is inherently easier to accept because it is more concretely observable and more easily manipulated.

I don't quite think that they are the same situation. The difference is that we aren't talking about "telling" people about a phenomeon - which requires proof. We are talking about actually experiencing a phenomenon - which is proof, in itself. If you are walking through a forest and lightning strikes, igniting a tree, you have proof of the existence of fire (whether you are aware of what fire actually is at the time, or not). There is no vaguery as to whether fire exists, because it's right there in front of you. Shared dreaming, on the other hand, is not as definitive. If you experience a shared dream (or the semblance of one), the experience itself, without further testing, is not enough to just say "I had a shared dream." That is what many people on the site do, IMHO, because they are just convinced that it is, even without the rigorous testing to prove the phenomenon was an actual shared dream, and not something like it.

Having fire proven to you doesn't carry this burden, because it is an objective, physical, tangible thing. Proving the existence of an actual shared dream is much, much more demanding than proving the existence of fire, because all you have to do is experience fire to have its existence proven to you.

Originally Posted by Saber2552

The main difference is that dreaming is at the moment a subjective experience that scientific knowledge cannot yet plumb the depths of, crippled by having to resort to indirect observation. Keep in mind that if it weren't for the fact that eye movement is not paralyzed while dreaming, even lucid dreaming might not be accepted by the scientific community, even though consciousness while dreaming is not such an absurd thought. We simply do not have the technology, skill, or will to test dreaming as rigorously as more obviously practical fields.

That is correct, and it is for this reason, exactly, that we have to be extra careful when labeling something as 'a shared dream.' It's just a matter of being careful not to call something (that has such heavy implications) something that it may not be. With lucid dreaming, the idea of becoming conscious within one's dreams is so common, that most people can say they've had at least a nightmare in which they realized they were dreaming. As far as physiology, it has never really been that wild a claim, in that it's not breaking any laws of known physics. I do understand that there are phenomena going on, at this age, that are proving to bend/break conventional laws of physics, making the category of 'what's possible' all that much bigger. But, with the possibility of something like Shared Dreaming, the implications for the future - and our understanding of the universe in general - are so great, that we must be even that much more careful about whether was have completely confirmed the phenomenon, before we go around spouting off that 'shared dreaming is real.' I'm very aware that our discoveries are limited to the tools available to us, at any given time, but - like with black holes - it's one thing to accept one thing as possible in theory, but it's dangerous to assume something so monumental exists, based on limited or premature evidence.

Originally Posted by Saber2552

It may sound like I accept the validity of shared dreaming. This isn't the case; I have not experienced it myself and am of course skeptical of its existence because scientific theory does not currently accept it. I simply find the amount of anecdotal evidence to be sufficient enough to warrant thorough scientific testing, see no inherent flaw in pursuing its study, and on a more emotional level am a wishful thinker and would like it to exist because of its possible practical and entertaining applications. The same goes for precognitive dreams and time dilation (though I really hope the latter is possible!).

Completely agree.

Originally Posted by Sageous

....Unless of course someone comes along who actually cares about the subject; then apparently shared dreaming fits very nicely into the mix!

Not sure that I agree with this. What I mean is that it's quite confusing to many people, to lump together scientifically-accepted phenomena like lucid dreaming, with as-yet-not-not-deemed-probable phenomena such as shared dreaming and other 'metaphysical concepts,' as if they are all of the same level of scientific validity. There's no harm in talking about them in the same context, but I think it important to make a distinction between such concepts, but that's just my opinion.

I think we agree for the most part, Oneironaut (you misspelled my name every time, btw ).

We both agree that testing done rigorously (and it would need to be, I hate claims based off of uncontrolled or loose testing) could result in strong evidence for shared dreaming, so I think the only discrepency we might still have is how useful that evidence is. Without supporting scientific theory, I agree that we can't just jump on the paranormal bandwagon. However, if rigorous scientific testing produces statistically significant results to the point where it'd be more likely the events are not due to chance, then I think we both agree that, though this would not hold all the answers quite yet, it'd be a great first step into scientific study of the paranormal.

As far as the fire argument goes, even experiencing fire itself is not enough of a proof to say with certainty it exists. As a result of all our experiences in the end being productions of the mind, even seeing fire, feeling its heat, even burning yourself with it is not enough to assure its reality, though it certainly gives strong evidence for its existence. Almost everything in the world can be misinterpreted; it takes scientific study to take us beyond the issues of psychology and into true physical understanding. I think we agree, though, fire is "easier to accept because it is more concretely observable and more easily manipulated." We're just battling details at this point (which is fun!).

You'd be surprised at the disbelief in even lucid dreaming without the science behind it! Here's a quote from Creative Dreaming by Patricia Garfield:

Originally Posted by Creative Dreaming: Preface to the Second Edition

At the time Creative Dreaming was published in 1974, lucid dream accounts were exclusively anecdotal. Dream and sleep researchers didn't believe it was possible to be asleep and conscious of the fact that one was dreaming. They dismissed descriptions of lucid dreams as, at worst, wild imaginings or, at best, "microawakenings" in which dreamers thought they were asleep but were actually briefly awake. Even if lucid dream accounts were true, it was believed they were so rare as to be unimportant. They were lumped with the categories of the occult or parapsychology.

You are absolutely correct, though, that anecdotal evidence is not enough for everyone to just jump on the shared dreaming bandwagon. I think people are too believing of the assumptions made by some people on this site The astral plane, spirit guides, souls, a collective unconscious, and precognition are all concepts thrown around like they are verified, but I feel they should instead be "food for thought" and concepts worth individual testing. Study of shared dreaming has the potential to radically change scientific knowledge as we know it if paranormal beliefs hold up, and so to not take the time and effort to study it thoroughly before making conclusions would be a scientific travesty and could jeopardize any secret truths that may be hidden within.

The distinction between lucid dreaming and shared dreaming is important; one has been scientifically verified and never required a huge leap of faith, while the other one has not yet been verified and requires a much larger leap of faith. Even still, I see the scientific and public acceptance of lucid dreaming as a tool to finally explore the paranormal aspects of dreams rationally and scientifically.

It's fun to talk to someone so rational.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Not sure that I agree with this. What I mean is that it's quite confusing to many people, to lump together scientifically-accepted phenomena like lucid dreaming, with as-yet-not-not-deemed-probable phenomena such as shared dreaming and other 'metaphysical concepts,' as if they are all of the same level of scientific validity. There's no harm in talking about them in the same context, but I think it important to make a distinction between such concepts, but that's just my opinion.

I agree. Indeed, I was relieved that my original admitted error of using shared dreaming as an example in the "Treatise" was set aside, and conversation shifted over to what I feel is paramount in all this -- that the individual dreamer must be careful about proving to himself that what just happened was a lucid dream. That LD'ing has already been generally accepted as proven by the scientific community (well, teeny tiny portions of the scientific community, but still scientists) only helped direct conversation that way.

However, the exchange you, mzzkc, and Sabre have been having has been enlightening, and I feel necessary, especially on this site. This thread is, to me, as good a place as any for that discussion. In other words, this talk might be about something completely different from LD'ing, scientifically speaking, but it still falls under the greater umbrella of Truth, and that is never a bad thing.

Sageous? It's been quite amusing seeing you encounter the "Dreamviews Firewall", trying so hard not to tread on eggshells, tiptoeing around Obi-Waneironought, letting them browbeat (bully) you down, etc etc. Tried the site search?

This guy was one of a previous (very) few who had the same misgivings that you seem to share:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f12/do-you...ing-lds-69018/

Interesting responses, especially from "Mad Stratter". He/she stayed here all of 2 months!

Good luck.

BTW Dark Matters? You say you've had "8 lucid dreams" but you don't know what the "full lucidity" (that Sageous mentions) is? I'd reset your dream dial to zero, you and lots of others. I suppose, like over 180,000 others, you'll disappear pretty soon.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Sageous? It's been quite amusing seeing you encounter the "Dreamviews Firewall", trying so hard not to tread on eggshells, tiptoeing around Obi-Waneironought, letting them browbeat (bully) you down, etc etc. Tried the site search?

Lol. What a joke. I remember the 'debates' you and I used to have (which were much less 'debates' than you being a douche and trying to belittle anyone who doesn't believe the things you believe). Not that I need to explain myself to you, but I think it'll be obvious to anyone who reads this thread that I wasn't the least bit forceful in sharing my opinion - which I repeatedly state was my opinion - so you are really just making a fool out of yourself (yet again), by using such accusational hyperbole, simply because you can't make a solid case for your own assumptions about reality.

But hey, don't let me stop you. Go nuts.
(Just watch your tone.)

Well, I once remember you wriggling and squirming, and then getting threatening. (How old were you when you first came here)?

..but "debates" with you? I don't remember any.. you're not confusing me with "arne saknussem" (banned) are you?

Quote: "Just watch your tone.."

Still trying to bully people, eh, with your pseudo-martial artist internet persona? Anyone can pose anonymously on the internet, and you certainly do. Where are all your sycophants when you need 'em? (And boy, do you need 'em). I'm sure they'll pop out soon.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Yes, I remember you wriggling and squirming, and then getting threatening.

Of course you remember it that way. Perception is everything, right? You call it wriggling and squirming. I call it trying to walk a line and tolerate your pompous rhetoric. Call it what you will.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

How old were you when you first came here?

Case in point.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Quote: "Just watch your tone.."

Still trying to bully people, eh,

A perfect example of how out of touch you are with reality. I wasn't threatening you like some internet tough guy. It is my charge to give you fair warning, when you engage in behavior that could get you infracted or banned from the site. You have made it a habit of being excessively dickish to members who don't share your views, and I have actually been very lenient on you, and not taken any action for the simple fact that I do not want it to seem as if I'm using my ability to do so as some personal vendetta. A little something that anyone reading this exchange (and the last) can take into account. I'm not going to waste too much time going back and forth with you, simply because you feel like being antagonistic, as usual.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

with your pseudo-martial artist internet persona? Anyone can pose anonymously on the internet, and you certainly do.

LOL. Wow. You really lay it on thick don't you? there are plenty of accounts of my low level of martial arts training, on the site. I took two years of Kung Fu (which I started back when I was 10! Lol.), and have taken a few Weeks of Muay Thai, a few years ago. Oh man. I'm such a poser. Lying about being a martial arts novice. You'd think if I was going to lie about something, I'd make it impressive. Oh well. Fail on my part, I guess.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Where are all your sycophants when you need 'em? (And boy, do you need 'em). I'm sure they'll pop out soon.

So easy to play the victim when more than one person disagrees with you, isn't it? God forbid you ever actually agrees with your views to back you, lest I stick my head in the sand and try to delegitimize differing opinions by calling them sycophants of yours.

This thread does not need to be derailed with your personal issues against me. I will not respond to any more of your mudslinging. If you have a problem with me, take it to PM. Otherwise, allow this thread to get back on track.

Oneiro, I really don't want to be a part of any conflict. I am also not sucking up to Oneironaut; I am looking at things objectively.

Your first post is filled with negativity. You assume that Sageous has been "trying so hard not to tread on eggshells, tiptoeing around Obi-Waneironought, [and] letting them browbeat (bully) you down" when I see no signs of any of these things and no mention of these things by Sageous himself.

Sageous posted just before you that he was thankful for the discussion on this thread, which I have personally participated in. I noticed no signs conflict other than differences in opinion, which were handled with rational discussion. He specifically mentions Oneironaut as having been beneficial to the thread.

The comparison to the other thread, I find, is a feeble one. The OP of that thread found opposition mainly out of the tone of his posts. His fundamental assertion in the first post was left unsupported, and his terse language and assumption of authority send a cold impression that does not help people get on his side. Even still, people were willing to humor the OP's request. Mad Stratter simply did not agree with a specific restriction (one that does seem illogical) which the OP never explains the importance of, and so Mad Stratter decides to weigh his own conclusion (that exposing the private message sent would not jeopardize the experiment and would instead get rid of some of the barrier to entry) above that of the OP's intentions. It is after this that the OP starts to make a flurry of unsupported assertions that causes A) the experiment to go downhill, and B) Mad Stratter to feel personally attacked and to strike back with his own personal attacks. It is unfortunate that the experiment was not seen to the end, but the OP is not a completely innocent victim and rather the catalyst of his own opposition.

Then you make the unsupported assertion that dreams need to have "full lucidity" to count as lucid dreams, specifically calling out an individual on his lucid count.

I don't agree with Oneironaut's tone in his response, though it's understandable given the fingerpointing at him in your first post. However, that does not give you reason to make more unsupported assertions in an even harsher tone than you used before, and this time with no on-topic discussion at all.

I'm sorry, Oneiro, but your posts in this thread have thrown off-track what was otherwise a rational and level-headed discussion. Please, understand this, and either join the on-topic discussion or leave entirely.

Well.. you've both done a nice (poor) job of derailing this thread, but it was originally about "truth"..

So go and read another opinion:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f12/do-you...ing-lds-69018/

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Well.. you've both done a nice (poor) job of derailing this thread, but it was originally about "truth"..

So go and read another opinion:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f12/do-you...ing-lds-69018/

No, Oneiro. You have derailed this discussion. And that really sucks, because it was a good one.

I'll respond quickly here to your first post, too, though Sabre's already said it quite clearly:

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Sageous? It's been quite amusing seeing you encounter the "Dreamviews Firewall", trying so hard not to tread on eggshells, tiptoeing around Obi-Waneironought, letting them browbeat (bully) you down, etc etc.

I'm not sure, Oneiro, if you are insulting me, warning me, or defending me (or simply being condescending), so I'll just stick with what makes sense:

Being new here, I had no idea that Oneironaut has moderator powers, and his presence on the thread registered zero on my intimidation scale. Zero. I have no idea why you think that. I never felt myself "tiptoeing." or suffered a browbeating. My apologies were for real (look the word up; in cases like this it is not about being sorry or submissive), and meant to acknowledge or explain my opinions, and not because I feared that I may have offended Oneironaut.

Any careful comments I did make (I assume that was your "walking on eggshells" bit) were meant purely to push forward a conversation that was actually going somewhere, in the hopes that I might learn something new, and that that something important to me might be shared clearly with others here. Nothing I wrote was edited or touched in any other way by the forum moderators, so why should I cower? Come to think of it, it's a damn website on the internet; why should ever be afraid of such a thing in the first place, regardless of what the moderators do? Are you?

This guy was one of a previous (very) few who had the same misgivings that you seem to share:
http://www.dreamviews.com/f12/do-you...ing-lds-69018/
Interesting responses, especially from "Mad Stratter". He/she stayed here all of 2 months!

I'm not quite sure why you sent me to that thread. I was never, even once, discussing misgivings, I was discussing the need for proof as a tool -- proof for something I already know is real, because I proved it to myself.

... You know what? I don't care. All in all this was an excellent conversation on all levels, and you have inexplicably chosen to lower it down to personal nonsense. I have no idea why, and really don't care, save that I really hate to see this thread ended in this soup of tiny talk. Oh, and I already sense that that this forum might not be the place for me (I have that same sense about the Web in general, so don't take offense, DV folks), so there is certainly a chance I won't be here in a few months...my exit, though, will have nothing to do with moderator intimidation.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

BTW Dark Matters? You say you've had "8 lucid dreams" but you don't know what the "full lucidity" (that Sageous mentions) is? I'd reset your dream dial to zero, you and lots of others. I suppose, like over 180,000 others, you'll disappear pretty soon.

Also, I never once said that low-level lucidity is not enough for a lucid dream. Had you read my posts, you might have noticed that I said the exact opposite.