How Shared Dreams Are Scientificly Possible.

Beyond Dreaming
21

Well, actually i asked you to quote the article, which to me means word for word. And i don’t mean to be argumentative, just wishing to discuss this topic further. And i would ask you how you come up with 1/4 chance, but i fear that it is just a guess.

After accusing me of not reading the link i will accuse you of the same :smile:

I won’t bother talking about gravity any more because that is offtopic, but i would have something to say.

And do experiment with these ideas even if the chance is less than 1/4 because the implications are tremendous. Do you know that scientists are testing to see if there is actually a preferred direction for light to travel. The chances are very small, but they still test it in case it is right because of the implications.

22

If you want information find it in the articles. I"m not going to quote something word for word… sorry just not going to happen. I figure 1/4 becasue it is undeniable that some form of phionics exist. Twins and such are perfect examples. testing with rabbits showed that a mother rabbit who gave birth to another was eternally linked with it. They took the baby away at birth to another lab and observed the mother after awhile she calmed down and seemed to forget about it. However, when the killed the baby… in another lab she got distressed and highly “in pain”.

All i’m really saying is that there is a 1/4 chance that we can control phyonics right now. There is a 100% chance they exist. My theory is simply laying scientific backing on to an otherwise unbackable topic. Now the chances that my hologram is the exact reason probably about 1/10.

If you do not have productive things to say then… well don’t say them… I don’t mine you questioning me thats fine just focus on the point.

23

What i am saying is productive.
If i find faults in what someone says it takes credibility away from them. If they claim to defy theories without any evidence and they lack credibility we are less likely to believe them. To show that someone is not credible is not non productive, it is searching for the truth. Just because it is critical (sorry if it is cynical) does not mean it is not productive.

Now since you are talking about those rabbits etc. i guess i can talk about that. I wonder if there is any way to tell that the pain was because of what happened to the other rabbit or if it was something else; a sickness for example. And by the way i am a twin and i have not had any paranormal experiences like that. I do think along the same lines as my twin, but nothing of that nature.

And by saying phyonics or phionics do you mean psionics? If so i will remind you that there is that prize for anyone who can prove it.
So saying that “it is undeniable that some form of phionics exist” is wrong to me. But i will remain open minded because it has not been proven that they can’t exist.

I am just being so critical because saying things like this, although you may believe them, can wrongly influence people that do not analyse the issue throughly. And also if you can prove me wrong then it just goes towards what you are saying and is more productive than you think. But if your proposal goes unchallenged, it remains doubtful for some.
If you want me only to ask questions then you are denying yourself the chance to strengthen your arguments.
P.S. I think the holographic principal is worth investigation and is a plausible idea, what i have the problem with is using it to explain physic phenomena.

24

I"M NOT HERE TO ARGUE ABOUT A THEORY I HAVNT" EVEN MADE. PEOPLE A HELL OF A LOT SMARTER THAN YOU MADE IT.

The rabbit experiment was done many many times. All with similar results. To say there was a sickness that struck her at that percise moment is stupid.

Stop talking about how the theory is wrong. People that have been spednign their lives on this made it. They are more qualified than you are and if they said the sky was going to turn red and you said it would stay blue I’m going with them. However, in this case their claims are far more plausible than the sky changing colors… so guess who I and everyone else that is reading this post is going to side with? Yep thats right the highly qualified scientists.

Phyonics (SP whatever) does exist. Phyonics in my eyes is a link between two peoples minds whethe concious or not. Twins are an excellent example. Its been proven that when the other is feelign something (Often dramatic) the other twin can feel that something is wrong with the other. This has been done with humans, animals, and tons of other things. As well as with the rabbit. There is some link between the twins and the mother and rabbit that is causing this. Scientists don’t know fully what it is but its something.

I would be highly thankful if you merely took this as a possible way for shared dreams can exist… unless you can think of a better one. That of which I highly doubt. This seems slightly plausible and has a 1/4 chance of being a factor in “Phyonics(SP)”

25

You say you are not here to argue yet you yell and you seem to be able to tell how smart i am and my background in science just by reading my posts. Anyway how do you know that they have had years of training? Just because they are scientists doesn’t mean that they are 100% right. I have also heard scientists say that psi stuff breaks the laws of physics so 2 groups of scientists going against each other, who do we believe? The more credible scientists. And science i know these people first hand they are quite credible. And you have not mentioned why these people have not taken the million dollar prize. It may not be heard everywhere, but i have heard the prize mentioned many times in the media. And i have seen the website which i forget at this time, but i will post it if i remember and if you care.
Do you also know that when people do experiments like the rabbit one if they are predisposed to a certain outcome then they might make mistakes to believe that the certain outcome happened.

P.S. If you claim that SD is possible without sufficient proof why shouldn’t i talk about how that is wrong?
And does anyone else have anything to say about this?

26

Does anyone find this interesting? Could it explain psionic occurances? I don’t know but it seems interesting. Please someone post your thoughts on how to explain psionic occurances and after you post that post whether or not my theory is plausible… (Follow steps dont’ go out of order or i’ll ignore)

27

Well, if you read The Holographic Universe (which I think everyone should if for no other reason than to entertain theories from cutting edge science) and accept it as true for arguements sake… then anything is possible. Part of the theory is that we are all one thing… one infinite mass of energetic soup and the only thing seperating us is our individual consciousnesses. There is no space to travel faster than the speed of light to because space and time don’t trully exist.

I don’t know about that but I do know that its possible Einstein was wrong. Many great thinkers have been close without getting the cigar before.

28

Yes of course anything is possible, but i don’t think it explains the communication between this one bit of mass. How can one brain communicate with another given that they are one? Why does one appear to only know some information and the other brain know different information? How is this boundary overcome?
If you say a theory and then say that it means that something is more possible than before, i would like it to be explained how it makes it more possible, a little more explanation than we are all one and everything knows everything else. How does one brain get the information out? If you could look into one brain using this theory then theoretically you could see anything anywhere, but what i am asking is how do you see it?

Thanks, i don’t know if there is really an answer for my question, but i expect there to be because they say that this theory in particular makes SD possible.

29

There’s nothing incredible about the concept of neural broadcasting. We can safely assert that all electronic devices emit some type of signal, and the brain is no exception. Additionally, who’s to say the brain can’t also receive these signals (inadvertently perhaps, in the form of interference) and react on them in some way?

In my opinion, and with my current understanding of neurological structure, I don’t accept that the above effect could allow for shared dreaming. The reason for this is simple - you don’t broadcast an encapsulated message complete with topic and other necessary objective information. You only transmit basic impulses in the form of waves. Even if they were received by another person, there’s absolutely no way (IMO) that these interfering signals would represent their original subject. No 2 brains are exactly the same, so the message wouldn’t be subjectively compatible with others.

This doesn’t dismiss the idea that others could unintentionally be influenced by emissions of extreme emotion, since a large portion of your basic instinctual mind is very much like everyone else’s. Someone with a similar (or derivative, in the case of offspring) brain structure as your own might be capable of detecting when you’re experiencing intense emotional feelings. I doubt this is technically accurate, but we’re not entirely out of ideas at least.

30

I don’t see how shared dreaming could be possible within the materialist world view which I happen to disagree with. Part of this paper by Peter B. Lloyd here covers why telepathy is unlikely under the physicalist view:

easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/light.htm
“Transpersonal communication is, I think, more than just telepathy. I believe it plays a crucial role in healing. First, though, let us consider the basic problem. On the physicalist view, individual people are separate physical systems, isolated by distances in space. If any information is to be communicated between two people, it must be expressed in some physical format, such as sound waves, or ink marks, or visible movements, and transmitted through the intervening space to the other person, who must then interpret the contents of the physical medium. For instance, when you hear someone talk, vibrations in the air travel from her lips to your ears, and your brain interprets them as syllables of English. From this perspective, it is impossible to countenance the direct transmission of thoughts or feelings from one mind to another. There have been speculations for many years that telepathy involves broadcasting signals in some band of electromagnetic energy, or in some undiscovered form of physical energy. The weight of evidence makes this implausible. First, it is a basic characteristic of the emission of any physical energy that its strength diminishes with distance (in accordance with the inverse-square law); yet all the reports of telepathy that I have seen suggest that its efficacy is wholly unaffacted by the distance between the participants. Second, if people can receive these transmissions, then there must be an interaction between the telepathic energy and tangible matter (unlike, say, neutrinos, which can pass through whole planets), therefore the strength of the broadcast must be attenuated by intervening obstacles, and if the telepathic energy were electromagnetic then a metal box (a ‘Faraday cage’) would block it; but telepathy seems unimpeded by any obstacles. Third,if everyone’s telepathic broadcasts are released into the atmosphere, how can anyone pick out a particular sender’s transmissions? Compare this with conventional radio communication, where the broadcaster must decide to transmit at a particular frequency, and the receiver must tune in to that same frequency. This is not proof, but personally I find the notion of a physical basis for telepathy implausible.
If we adopt the Berkeleian philosophy, though, we get a different picture. Here, we deny that space actually exists: it is only a construct within our imaginations. Therefore our minds cannot be at any distance at all from one another. Hence the whole problem of sending thoughts and feelings across long distances, which bedevils physics, does not arise in the Berkeleian system. Furthermore, no mechanism is required to express thoughts and feelings into a physical form. For, each individual’s mind exists within the matrix of God’s mind: we are, in effect, parts of a single, vast mind and we may therefore suppose that transpersonal communication is achieved through the same means as intrapersonal communication. Just as you can have awareness of the thoughts, emotions, and memories in your own mind, so telepahy involves the access by the same means between two minds.”

31

I think that that person arrives at his conclusions in a closed minded fashion and i still don’t see how the second way works. Why, for example do we not know everything everyone else knows, why do some people seem to need to concentrate to be telepathic? etc, many unanswered questions about how this is possible. It is possible, but to me, only in the sense that everything is possible (without conditions applied). So i agree with you that i disagree with that person.
I also agree with Atheist, except that there is no system that we have found that can percieve these sorts of signals even of intense emotion.

32

If there is telepathy I don’t see why we should know everything that everyone else knows. Our conscious experiences our own and from what I know about telepathy it seems to be a very subtle and hard to pick up on connection to someone. If it were to be possible some kind of immaterialist world view would probably have to be true.

There is actually some evidence for it. A recent experiment that I’m aware of that turned up positive results was testing telephone telepathy.

sheldrake.org/papers/Telepat … tests.html
skepticalinvestigations.org/ … video.html

This is the abstract from the skeptical investigations site:
ABSTRACT:
The authors tested whether participants (N = 4) could tell who was calling before answering the telephone. In each trial, participants had 4 potential callers, one of whom was selected at random by the experimenter. Participants were filmed on time-coded videotape throughout the experimental period. When the telephone began ringing, the participants said to the camera whom they thought the caller was and, in many cases, also how confident they felt in their guesses. The callers were usually several miles away, and in some cases thousands of miles away. By guessing at random, there was a 25% chance of success. In a total of 271 trials, there were 122 (45%) correct guesses (p = 1 10-12). The 95% confidence limits of this success rate were from 39% to 51%. In most trials, some of the callers were familiar to the participants and others were unfamiliar. With familiar callers there was a success rate of 61% (n = 100; p = 1 10-13). With unfamiliar callers the success rate of 20% was not significantly different from chance. When they said they were confident about their guesses, participants were indeed more successful than when they were not confident.

There were also the ganzfeld experiments which tested telepathy and showed significant results of hundreds of trials and different experiments.
psiexplorer.com/ganzintr.htm
tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi … lanoy.html
comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/upd … d_data.htm

33

Yes, yes, yes there are many claims of telepathy on the internet and on tv, but i can not be convinced that way. However, i can still hypothesise about the possibilities about it. Reading through parts of the experiment i could see that it was not done under the strictest of conditions and could be better. I know these sorts of things may convince some of you but you need to remain open minded and realise that even prominent scientists make mistakes and even falsify results. I am not saying that it was done in this case, nor am i saying that the results aren’t demonstrating the true nature of the world (ie that telepathy exists). I am just saying that it is not enough for me to believe.
You know, there is motive to fake supernatural powers.

34

I’ll have to look over it more later but I don’t see how it could have been more strict with controls since they have to say who the caller is before picking up the phone. I also don’t see how there could have been any sensory leakage but no experiment can ever be perfect. In the case of the ganzfeld experiments I would have to also look into it more but I believe they did a meta-analysis of all the experiments that took place using the ganzfeld method and found that with all the tests done the chances of the results coming from chance were something like a trillion to one. I know there has been a lot of debate about ganzfeld. Of course there is always motive to fake paranormal powers but the same could be said about any scientific experiment since it’s always in the scientist’s interest to turn up positive results. Parapsychology tests are most likely done under the strictest conditions because it’s always under extreme criticism by skeptics.

35

I don’t think in most cases it is under the scientists best interest to have positive results so that they faked them. If as a scientist you fake results it will need to be replicated in another lab to prove you right, and when that is not done you will be ridiculed, so generally scientists try to be as accurate as possible.

36

There certainly is a lot of replication in different areas of parapsychology you can’t settle something with a single experiment. It’s hard to say how much replication is enough because these types of phenomena have been demonstrated many times in the last hundred years. Though there seems to be no pleasing some skeptics no matter how good controls are or how much replication there is even though skepticism is needed some of it seems like belief based rejection rather then objective inquiry. Parapsychology seems to be under more pressure to have better controlled experiments then any other area of science and it’s not because of any flaws in previous experiments. Ganfeld has been replicated over and over again by highly credible research labs and is still being tested today the results have been shown to be significant and consistent between different experiments and scientists conducting them especially with the autoganzfeld experiments.