The fact is that shared dreaming is NOT scientifically proven, that some people CLAIM that they’ve had these dreams (which hasn’t been proven) and some people would like to find out for themselves if it is possible or if some people have just made up a load of twaddle for no apparent reason. I think we can all agree that there’s no scientific evidence and so if some people want to discuss the possibilitys of if, how and why it may be possible then that should be the purpose of this particular forum.
In short, there’s been some interesting stuff but quite a lot of detected hostility which has made the topic go a bit off course. That’s just my opinion but if I’m reading this correctly then… chill.
Toltec witches practiced shared dreaming. Also different esoteric teachings say, that is possible. For me, personally, it is enough that Castaneda wrote about it… a lot. BTW, toltecs had shared dreaming between a group of people.
The key is to have good control over your dreams, to sleep at the same time and agree on meeting at some certain place. If both persons will remember the meeting, then shared dreaming took place.
After I get my dreamcontrol properly up and running, I will start trying to reach shared dreams. It is 100% possible.
I did NOT say “science says shared dreaming could occur by chance just because billions of people dream each night?” I said and I quote
I know what I mean although if I have to clarify to to the nth degree it should say “Because no vaild scientific study has been undertaken people have to hypothosise about shared dreaming and go on personal accounts, I’ve seen people refute shared dreaming before giving the reason, out of the billions of people on the planet,” they would say, "it was bound to happen in a few cases, just by chance alone.
Its just arguement me and Dreamfortehwinz seem not be understanding each others posts it seems but theres no hostility from me and I don’t think from Dreamfortehwinz?
Your statement
Should actually read “Shared dreaming has not had any scientific research done on its validity so at the moment it is NOT possible to prove one way of the other that it an accepted phenomenon.”
I’ll go further and say the only way to prove one way or the other would be to take a large section of the population and record their dreams in the morning via computer, do this over a year (should really be more) and base the results against baseline chance.
I think we’re basically on the same page on that point. I’m still reading the same words and it still says what it says, but as long as you can agree that you can’t make predicitions of probability without evidence for the chance of something, then the point is settled.
Nope, no hostility here. I will, however, admit that I reply with frustration in some of my posts - I see people fall victim to fallacies of logic on these boards far too often.
No, what I wrote was correct.
First of all, research on shared dreaming that yields nonsufficient evidence to allow the theory of its existence to be accepted means that it is not accepted. Further, LACK of research on shared dreaming yields NO evidence, and therefore it can’t be accepted. Let me qualify this with an example. Purple tyrannosaurus rex’s carrying belt-fed machine guns have not been proven to either exist or not exist, BUT it is assumed that they do not exist until there is hard information that they do;purple t-rex commandos do not exist.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this, but the reason I believe it would be easily testable under lab conditions is that there are people that claim to have the ability to have shared dreams. Take a look at Freeborn’s post. He thinks he’ll acquire the ability to have shared dreams with practice. He notes that “Toltec witches practiced shared dreaming.” I’ve seen other claims of the inducement of shared dreams not through chance, but through conscious will.
Sure because as I’ve said science does not allow personal accounts, these are not accepted as evidence in science. I quite agree, you could not call it science if these were admissable.
Ok Spock but science is not the only way of investigating the world, I’m not a robot and neither are most of the people on this board. They are allowed to speculate as much as they like. I agree that people tend to state as fact far too much on the net but inteligent people read between the lines and make their own minds up. If we all had to comb through everything we said and cite sources and facts and counterfacts everytime we wanted to say something then we’d end up in relatively pointless semantic conversations like the one we are having.
Prove it.
Whilst I can provide many examples of serious accounts of shared dreams you can provide no accounts Purple tyrannosaurus rex’s carrying belt-fed machine guns outside of Calvin and Hobbes cartoons, and whilst I love Calvin and Hobbes I think your making a dry point. Where is the humanity in your logic? Remember 20 years ago your arguements were used to tell lucid dreamers that they were mistaken in their belife that they were experiencing a real phenomenon!
Then it is you who deviate from true science and into the realm of Randi psudo-science by just testing an individual.
You might be unaware that if asprin had not had a wide testing trail in the US it would have been cast aside as usless as its results on blood pressure only showed up on a large scale. You need proper science with proper blinds and large studies that can be reproduced in differing labs.
I was glancing through a book on dreams earlier today, and the two sections I foccused on where the lucid section (learnt nothing new, though it was an inteeressting read - better than the other dream book which claimed that LD’ing was bad because ‘it defeats the whole purpose of dreaming’…) and the shared dreaming part.
It said that quite often, a shared dream is initiated by a very sick person (as in near to death sick), which I thought you guys may be interessted in hearing (unless someone already brought it up - I can’t be bothered to read through massive long posts of people arguing…)
In a way, I’d have to disagree that science isn’t the only way of investigating the world. Even our subjective experiences are inherently tested by science, although the tests of some are less rigorous than others
I’d like to make it clear that there’s nothing wrong with forming a personal opinion, even without having evidence to back it up. It is, however, wrong to form an opinion that you can’t prove and then argue that it is true.
I personally believe in some sort of a god and an afterlife due to my experiences with LDs, OBEs, and gut feeling. If someone said to me, “oh yeah? there’s an afterlife? prove it,” I would simply reply that I couldn’t and would admit that I have no logical foundation to stand on…A bit of a tangent there, but it’s at least relevant to helping you understand where I’m coming from.
Sure. You wrote:
No research to prove validity. Ok. Because of this, we can’t prove whether or not it is an accepted phenomenon? Incorrect. Testing is a requirement in determining whether or not something is accepted. No research has been done, therefore it can’t be accepted.
If you were to change that a little bit and say “Shared dreaming has not had any scientific research done on its validity so at the moment it is NOT possible to prove its existence, one way or the other,” then there wouldn’t be anything wrong.
Ah, maybe I did get that idea from Calvin and Hobbes. I haven’t read those comics in years - I thought it was an original idea, as I just happen to love ficticious beasts of destruction
I don’t need humanity in my logic when I’m mulling over raw information, like this;I only need humanity in my logic when creativity is necessary.
Toltec witches are an individual? Anyway, even if I were to find just one individual that claimed to have conscious power over the inducement of shared dreams I could still test the alleged phenomenon under lab conditions.
I was not aware of this, but your paragraph suggests that you’re missing my point. Let’s say the wide scale testing had never happened in the US. Aspirin would then have been considered to have no medicinal value. Scientifically speaking, this would be TRUE - it would be ACCEPTED that it was useless. This conclusion does not mean that aspirin doesn’t have any medicinal value, it’s just that there’s no evidence for it. It is understood that when something is considered true that it carries with it the admission of “as far as we know.” Accepted simply means that the evidence has been tested and the theory has been proven to be true(“as far as we know” ). The terminology of science is a prime basis for communication, and without it, we might as well be speaking different languages.
"As far as shared dreaming goes, I highly doubt it is possible. Shared dreaming would be unbelievably simple to prove in a laboratory setting with individuals possessing the supposed ability to enter each others dreams. "
Mavromatis said he could produce instances (many i think) of shared hypnagogia in labratory settings… there’s no data in his book about it though.
You said no one has ever claimed to have SDs on a regukar basis, Me and Freecube have them everynight, we have exchanged passwords, and even filled in the blanks when we are quizzing each other. Even if we did “prove” conclusivley that we have had SDs I still think that many if not most of the people would not believe it.
I never believed in it before, I knew it was impossible, but ever since Ive been able to achieve Lucidity every night,I have started doing experiments, and now I have no choice but to believe it, because of the evidence that i have seen.
Man, I really would like to believe you. If you two can honestly have shared dreams on a regular basis, then why don’t you do us all a favor and get yourselves into a lab where this can be tested?
because we are both 15 year olds who cant drive, and whos parents think that LDing is stupid and wouldnt drive us there, the nearest Lab is probably over 100 miles away and I have no money.
But believe me i would love to go to a Lab and do that.
This anal picking apart of each others posts bores me too although it pisses me off more wasting my time which is already too full up everyday. Sometimes it has to be done though… sigh
Yes your observation is valid in a NON SCIENTIFIC way (Dreamfortehwinz) psi (paranormal) phemenon had been observed to occur more in times of stress/threat. Even if you look at my case, we could imagine that one of us first dreamed about the ghost and the enhanced feelings of fear triggered an enhanced sensitivity that the other dreamer picked up on… the threat was relayed from me to my freind or vice versa.
R3TRO, I think I asked for yours and Freecubes shared dreams quite a while ago now? While it might not be ethical to test people under age its shouldn’t be a problem to see examples of your shared dreams.
I agree it would be easier to focus on other psi elements of the experience that we “suspect” might be at play like telepathy.
True and I never ever claim shared dreaming IS fact, just that myself and others have experienced what appears to be shared dreams and I’ve speculated to its causes on various webpages. lucidcrossroads.co.uk/shared.htm
And sorry to say but I’m going to have to cut this tit for tat short, I’ve just finished a magazine cover and I’m part way through illustrating a technique guide at the Crossroads and I want to finish it. I would like to address your points but I don’t have the free time of a student unfortunately, If I get time I will again.
While all of this scientific proof may set aside some peoples curiousities, and allow some people who ‘want to believe’ to believe, does the stamp of scientific approval necessarily mean that it’s solid evidence of somethings existence? Granted with doing something like a shared dreaming password exchange under lab conditions then this would be conclusive enough for me but that doesn’t mean that everything which is currently accepted as scientific law is actually how it is. (prepare for a bit of a ‘relevant’ tangent…) Take gravity for example. 300 odd years since Newton disguised the Geometric Orbit Equation and added the phenomenon of gravity to it scientists still haven’t derived a power source for gravity, making it violate the Law of Conservation of Energy as it cannot just be a non-reliant, completely renewable source of energy with nothing to transfer the energy from. The equation which he changed now includes mass which means that the mass of distant planets can be calculated due to their orbital distance and velocity, although this is incorrect as it doesn’t take into account the material composition of the planets. Mass is even unnecessary in the equation as all orbits can be calculated without it, even such as the trajectory of a cannon ball doesn’t use mass in the equation. It also violates the Law of the Speed of Light, I could go on… (I read about this recently and it seemed relevant to…) …My main point, being…
Despite its MANY flaws on account for no better explanation the laws of gravity, including incorrect mass calculations which can and have been derived from it, is accepted as ‘Scientific FACT’, leading me to question the integrity and validity of scientific fact as being the might ‘end all’ to problems, mysteries and questions of nature. I treat it like the newspapers, don’t believe EVERYTHING they tell you; for a different reason though. Not for propaganda, but simply because it’s what THEY believe because they don’t know better. And neither do we. There are plenty of mysteries in the universe and science isn’t the answer to all of it.
And I too would like to believe some of these things, but until there’s even a shred of semi-conclusive evidence, I refuse to abandon objective thinking for romanticism.
I agree with this guy too. I still believe in shared dreaming until it has been conclusively dispproven. Anyone who is very knowledgeable about shared dreaming and believes it is possible, please pm me. I’d like to ask you some questions.
On the whole topic of science does not eqaul fact blal vla bla… I would just like to point out the advantages of having things tested (by science) as these people are trained to test things and calculate (or avoid )any variables that may impede on the test.
For example. R3tro and Freecube may think they have shared dreams… (sorry, just pulling info off your posts here)but you also live close by to each other and go to school together and who knows what other shared interests you have… and those would all be variables to create a degree of doubt that what you are expeienceing isn’t shared dreaming per se, but infact you are dreaming similar things because you have similar lives.
I think you would need to test it with two people who only know of each other by sight… then if they can pass information to each other in a dream on several attempts… then we might have a good case to prove that there is something there… scientifically.
There really is no scientific way to prove that Shared Dreaming is possible…there is no hard core evidence. It all comes down to your beliefs, and if you’ve experienced it or not. It’s sort of like Lucid Dreaming. At first, you go, eh…is this too good to be true? But when you actually experience it, you see how awesome it is, and that it actualy does exist. Same goes for Shared Dreaming.
Think about how our brains are so much more advanced than any computer out there. We don’t even know its capabilities to the fullest, so is it really that hard to think about our brains communicating with other brains. If you didn’t think it’s possible, you might as well say the internet isn’t possible.
bendrummin58 wrote:
“If you didn’t think it’s possible, you might as well say the internet isn’t possible.”
“There really is no scientific way to prove that Shared Dreaming is possible…there is no hard core evidence”
I can prove the internet exists. I observe it every day. You say Shared Dreaming can’t be observed. If its as simple as alot of you believe, that Freecube and R3TRO are capable of having them at will, (whether they are an objective, reliable source is irrelavent right now), then it can easily be observed.
But why hasn’t it? You could believe what they say, which is…
1- That they are 2 teenagers who aren’t able to drive
2- Who both have parents who are thick-headed enough to refute any notion this could be a phenomenon, even if confronted with hard evidence.
3- (this one’s my favorite) That they are probably like a billion miles away from any lab this could be tested and observed.
4. Many people, (such as myself I’m sure) wouldn’t believe them anyways.
OR You could apply Occam’s Razor, and believe…
It hasn’t been observed because it hasn’t happened to them.
P.S. Again I ask, how do I make it so you don’t see the brackets?
of the people on this board. They are allowed to speculate as much as they like. I agree that people tend to state as fact far too much on the net but inteligent people read between the lines and make their own minds up. If we all had to comb through everything we said and cite sources and facts and counterfacts everytime we wanted to say something then we’d end up in relatively pointless semantic conversations like the one we are having.
). The terminology of science is a prime basis for communication, and without it, we might as well be speaking different languages.