there are two poles of dogma
blind skepticism blind faith
valid inquiry on an individual level is needed and warranted.
consider the master of placebo effects, is he a miracle worker ? how can’t he be?
a dude that is good at winning things, really good at it, because he believes he is,
the belief creates the reality and the reality creates the belief
the first cause is ?
people say MAN YOU ALWAYS WIN, and he just laughs.
what frustrates me is the limitation of our language, and vex may be a more proper term
say something is going to happen, the causes and conditions for this event are set up, and are measurable, no matter what the event is, as simple as a person sneezing, as complex as a tidal wave, there is math orchestrating it,
a psychic is tuned into awareness of the processes that govern sneezing, lottery winning, typhoons, spiritual ecstasy, romantic love, you name it, so they see it manifesting by noticing the tumblers fall into place, before the obvious sign is here
it’s like the simpsons episode where Lisa warns there is a hurricane, and Homer says “animals are always the first to know”
our science is in many ways absurd and reverse, i will give one example, thinking that specific pills can always be better than herbs, giving anti-biotics for a sinus infection that comes back every 3 weeks for 4 consecutive years, and still thinking the anti-biotics are useful
so you have them, who gives a hissy, why take pills if they solve nothign? this is the mind of the dogmatic scientist, who clutches to his quarks and photons the way superstitious folks clutch to t eir spirits and spells.
it is only by reading between the lines and critically examining and exploring and thinking outside of established reason that new discoveries are made! swamij.com/pdf/swamiramaprobe1973.pdf
reading this will give an illustration of telepathy and psychic power. if you doubt the remote viewing he performs, it is proven over and over again that other “impossible” feats such as he performs with his body and heart ARE possible, and yet, insist these feats to average stuffy men 50 years ago and they would say “ridiculous, he cannot slow his heart down to that level.” or etc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tummo
and what about Tummo ? These guys are practically naked in the middle of snow for hours, lol.
you can even use other people’s bodies if they consent to it.
one other example: Cesar Milan with a gesture and glance he can make a whole neighborhood of dogs stop barking! Most people can’t get dogs to be quiet for the life of them, no matter what they do. h e is tuned into psychic awareness, he uses the term “energy”, if he wanted to use science words, he’s still doing something outside of conventional societal reasoning, that appears at times mysterious.
+advocation for empathy, witnessed on tv, lol.
I agree totally - what is causing our body to be in this world? And for us to completely possess it? Obviously the connection.
And how can we think?
If you say, “It’s all reactions in chemicals… blah nerves… etc., brain… blah, drone…”, consider this: How come it’s YOU perceiving it?
Gawd, that question puts my mind in the same state as it was when I tried to imagine the infinity of space.
Which is a coincidence (or is it?), because that is related to this topic.
I think if you look at the universe spiritually, it could very well exist. I also believe there is an energy that is omnipotent and creates is everything. Looking at it that way, it would make sense that shared dreaming is possible, but it would be impossible to prove right now.
Yes, science is a buisnessman in a suit taking a scalpel and cutting the right brain off from the left, throwing creativity and wonder and beauty into a prison cell, and, paradoxically, forcing the sentient being to live confined in walls of cold reasoning.
“Wow, that’s amazing!” Wow, you’re a liar! You don’t know what being amazed even is, how dare you speak that sentence! and you have American society.
Like, I totally love ice-cream.
like, you’re totally braindead, as I often am.
chemicals, neurons, etc, this robs beauty, use beautiful words.
----------L> notice the fallacy of our language, I just condemned “science” however many scientists experience profound wonder and mystery and synchronize both brain hemispheres, like Einstein
it is the job of you human being, to scour this post for whatever truth you see in it, and t hen interpret it into your own language using examples that make intuitive sense to you.
You say potato, I say “po-tat-oh” and for this we have wars? TRUTH IS
now your question is so good, what confines us into physical bodies? i can give you a long essay about how the world functions to steal our spiritual vitality from us, but I do that all the time. or I could arrange that “how functions of the world” and then its not a conspiracy.
incidentally science is just refined superstition, it is so transient that it constantly negates itself to newer discoveries, however to see this requires a time line of a God.
this does not mean what it discovers is not true, it just means that the lower case truth is subjugated to human perception.
for instance : what I say is only true in the realm of formlessness, where the symbols are linked to intuitive understanding and therefore learning, if you nitpick them for science then you sort of miss the point, for I know that the sentence that science negates itself constantly is a truth and untruth, and this requiers immaculate intellecutal masturbation skills to really expound and pontificate exactly what i “really” mean when its just supposed to transmit formless without such scrutiny
for what i mean is evident to all the lightbulbs i light up that read this, and it is ignored by everyone else, and perhaps disagreed with by some
the goal of disagreeing then being, to strengthen mutual understanding, rather than to play tug of war.
[incidentally all things “paranormal” must be proved by science at some point if science continues existing, WHAT SCIENCE IS is greatly useful for dispelling dogmatism and superstition, herein the paradox of my limited expressions… science is the enemy of dogma and superstition, yes, I favor its growth, it is a far superior way than our primitive animal history]
What about them? Is there actually any such thing as what you’re describing? For my part I have never, ever seen any credible evidence to suggest that levitation or telekinesis is real (and I know how easy it is to fake that stuff…simple magic tricks and a little misdirection, including but not limited to outright lying on the part of the performer). I’m not adverse to the idea that such things exist, I just haven’t seen good evidence for them. What I have seen is a lot of wishful thinking, poor evidence, and in the worst cases, deception. If shared dreaming were real, then as I said, that would be one of the coolest things ever to be discovered. But I’m not going to let that wishful thinking cloud my judgment. I’d rather know what is actually true than fool myself.
…and if there are such things, that doesn’t mean shared dreaming is also real. That would be like saying that, since I can drive a car, I can also fly a helicopter (which I cannot ): they are both vehicles, but very different ones indeed.
What scientists have you been paying attention to man? You already said you knew that creativity and wonder are paramount to the scientific endeavor (or something along those lines anyway). You mentioned Einstein, but Darwin, Newton, Lemaitre, Sagan, Kepler, and many others serve as additional examples of why you have to be creative when you try to figure nature out. It’s not that scientists work better when imagination and skepticism are fused, it’s that science itself works better. So which is it then? Is science really useful for “dispelling dogmatism and superstition” or is it just “refined superstition” or “a buisnessman [sic] in a suit taking a scalpel and cutting the right brain off from the left?” Science can’t be all of those things and still truly be science.
yes, many paradoxes and contradictions I just wrote
its not the word science, i need many different words, all involving around logic and spock / authoritarian / borg like behavior + mass media + INDUSTRY
in idiocracy all the top scientists worked on making men’s specialty pills.
Skepticism is not blind, because skepticism is questioning. Blindly accepting something is to not question, and this is what faith is. However, asking oneself how something could be possible, why something could be possible, seeking evidence or support - that is skepticism. It is not blind.
The ‘master of placebo effects’? Never heard of him. I don’t know what you’re talking about, so please be more clear next time.
Okay, this is just ridiculous. Why? Because hundreds, thousands, millions of people believe in things which aren’t true. And many more don’t believe in things which are true. The gambling addict might believe he’s a winner, or will be someday, paying off all his debts - but isn’t and can’t. The young guy at a party might truly believe he has the willpower to try heroin once and never have it again - but gets addicted. For every person who believes he is a winner and is, there is another who believes he is a winner and isn’t. The reverse is also true: People can believe they are worthless and losers, when they are really valued and loved, and their life circumstances are good.
So does this mean that the percentage of the population who believe they’re winners and are, became that way through some mysterious force? Of course not. They’re just a given part of the human population, which is full of variety and complexity. Look at all the wannabes on Idol who can’t sing and yet believe they have great talent. They truly believe they’re better than they are and feel righteously cheated and indignant when they don’t make it, but that doesn’t make them good. But there are others who believe they are good when they really are. And others with low self-esteem who think they’re not so good and are shocked to hear they passed into the next round. People are varied and different, and that’s part of life.
It’s basically the same argument that all the other non-skeptics were trying to use and failing: that events are not caused by coincidence. But this is not true. If it was, everyone’s belief would match up to reality, and anyone can see this is not the way the world works. Every day hopes are crashed, people received unexpected surprises and things don’t turn out as planned.
If a man believes he is a winner, all that probably means is that he has a big ego. Even if he is a winner, he could lose tomorrow, or have his pet run over by a car, or so on. Conversely, the street beggar might be taken in by a kind stranger even though he might have expected to spend the rest of his life at soup kitchens. Belief has nothing to do with what really goes on- all it does is affect the way you personally see things, and you alone.
Huh? Vex means “annoy”. I can’t see that this has anything to do with what you previously wrote. Be clearer please.
I hate to break it to you, but no. Life is highly unpredictable and quite chaotic in many ways. It’s common knowledge that science and maths has not figured everything out, so saying everything is controlled by maths is a blatant lie and a very ignorant assumption to make. Skepticism is extended to maths and science as well as psychics, you know. If there is no proof that maths controls everything, then it’s silly to assume it does. Common sense tells us that there are many unpredictable things in life, like the weather, human behaviour, games of chance. Certainly we can’t predict a sneeze except under a specific set of conditions, such as waving cat hair under the nose of someone with a cat allergy (and even then, they might just get an itchy nose and not actually sneeze).
I’d like to see what evidence or examples you have to support your claim that the world is set up. This sounds more like organised religion than anything - the idea that everything is organised by a creator. But even Christianity, for example, allows for free will. So even Christianity does not advocate the belief that everything is controlled and is governed by rules. However, I can think of nothing really persuasive that supports your argument for the world being ordered and straightforward.
There are no “processes”. Give me one good example of any processes existing.
I’d think of a non-fictional example to use in a debate, if I were you.
Doctors do not continue to prescribe something if it doesn’t work, and patients do not generally continue to take them. If they do, then they are quite stupid people, but stupid people do and should not reflect on medical science as a whole. Not all antibiotics work on everyone - I have a personal experience with this myself. You know what I did? I switched to a different antibiotic after a couple of months, and when that didn’t work, I switched to a hormonal treatment, which did work (and which was also the result of medical science). It’s just common sense to try a different method when the first one fails. So unless all doctors are stupid (and judging by medical school entrance requirements, I should say not), they are not going to ignorantly continue prescribing something that has no effect.
In fact, scientists are the last people who would clutch to something that doesn’t work. Science demands proof, or very little room for error. Plus, the pharmecutical industry is cut-throat, with many drugs never making it to the market due to budget constraints (I’ve done research on this). Only the best and most likely to be effective get through the clinical testing phases, which are also highly demanding in regards to results. If they fail any stage, they don’t make it through. If something doesn’t work in science, it is discarded. Now, take herbs which have not gone through clinical trials - there’s no evidence they work, but people still cling to them in the belief they work. To be fair, since there’s no evidence either way, they very well may be effective. But with no evidence it works, it is the herb-users who ‘cling to’ their treatment blindly, not the scientists. Your argument was wrong in that it was completely back to front. Try thinking logically next time before you make assumptions that make no sense.
I agree. Critical examination is crucial. However, what you are doing is not critical examination, but the opposite - you are making broad assumptions without looking at the alternatives, and accepting them blindly. Critical examination is, essentially, skepticism - exactly what you seem to be arguing against! So get it right.
I also agree completely with what Josh wrote earlier in response.
Okay, that’s biological and psychological, not psychic. Anyone can slow down their heart rate with purely psychological stimuli - for example, I’m scared of cockroaches. When I think of cockroaches, my heart rate goes up because I’m scared, even if there’s no real cockroach present. When I think of rainbows and unicorns, it slows back down. It’s signals from the brain causing a biological reaction, similar to the brain telling your arm to move. As I understand it, psychic ability is controlling something outside the body via the mind - but this is within the body. So you’ve misconstrued the information here.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information in any situation, let alone a debate. If you quote wikipedia, you’d better be prepared to back it up with something better.
For what? Be clearer.
Right, I took a look at his offical website, and the guy’s a psychologist. Not psychic. It looks like you’ve misconstrued it completely.
Your post clearly shows that you have simply been making broad assumptions and have not made an attempt to base them on anything but blind belief. Furthermore, some of your arguments have been blatantly wrong, completely illogical and are against any common sense. Please try to look at both sides of the issue when presenting an argument next time, even if you only argue for one.
I completely agree with Stormthunder’s conclusion. Eyelids, if you were a skeptic and you would joke and ridicule the believers point of view, you wouldn’t do better. The style of “the one who knows and doesn’t need to explain” is certainly very poetic but it doesn’t bring anything concrete to the discussion.
I completely agree with you and this is confirmed by the many posts I’ve read on a paranormal forum I participated in during more than one year. Something strange happens (scientifically explained of not) then the guys thinks they have psychic powers. And according to this hypothesis, they try to find new events (generally completely normal events that are overinterpreted) to confirm their point of view. This is not so far, by the way, from a paranoid process cause it’s based on the inflation of the ego, spirit of system, interpretation delirium and it often turns out to a persecution delirium when their alleged psychic powers eventually reveals them they are endangered (premonitions or precog dreams of death, evil entities, etc.)
But this has nothing to do with the fact that some unexplained events may happen.
As I say it above, the way you “explain” these phenomenon by saying “we may”, “it may be that”, etc. has nothing scientific. You’re just listing possibilities in order to make disappear an event that doesn’t fit with your way of thinking. If I remember well, Rupert Sheldrake had a far more scientific protocole when he studied this cases (and according to his statistics, there is something strange in them indeed).
Skeptics way of “explaining” things may be compared to this allegory: let’s suppose that we’re in a time when the lightningstrike is not explained and skeptics don’t believe in it. “Believers” say that they saw the lighting strike a tree and set fire to it. Skeptics say that it’s just impossible (cause it’s not explained): lightnings are obviously in the sky, they don’t reach the ground. They list possibilities that may explain that the fire was caused by anything but a lightningstrike: some pyromaniac took advantage of the storm and the belief of stupid people that storms may cause fire to discretely act; the tree was never set on fire, it’s just an urban legend; the man who told this was awfully egotistical, he just wanted to gain popularity by telling a story; the setting sun was confused with fire, etc.
On the other hand, some people think that it must be a divine message, that prayers must be said, that the owner of the field where the tree was set on fire did something wrong, that he must be punished cause he caused the divine wrath to strike the village, etc.
And if you find my example to not be realistic enough, then just think of the lucid dreams not being believed in by skeptics during a century: it just wasn’t possible.
There is no relation between the philosophical skepticism, which is indeed questioning everything, and the pseudo-skepticism of some people who generally just adore science without knowing anything about it, and are just practising a positivism like it existed at the end of the XIX century, when people believed that science will resolve all the problems of humanity and soon explain everything. Skepticism doesn’t question science, it doesn’t question the reasoning, it doesn’t question what is truth, reality, etc. His precepts are those of the materialism like it was understood more then a century ago when things were believed to be solid and predictible. It has nothing to do with the modern physics or neurobiology, which are generally more open-minded.
Secondly, skepticism (or more precisely pseudo-skepticism) is most often generated by hate (and gullibility generated by fear) what you call “having a very low tolerance threshold for irrationality and stupidity”. Skepticism doesn’t walk alone, it’s generally accompanied by the hate of religions (“superstitions”) for instance. It doesn’t want to understand (in particular to understand the stupidity, which is the main characteristic of humankind), it just want to destroy it (as if it was possible). Hate (or fear), ignorance, refusal of understanding, inventing wrong explanations in order to “explain” things that aren’t, that is was I call blindness.
I think people blindly accept science to be the master of all that is right. We know close to nothing about how the brain works on most levels. We know ABSOLUTELY nothing about the afterlife, except for those many people who have died and been resuscitated.
These are the topics that I would assume relate to shared dreaming, if it existed. Science can tell me how fast an apple will fall. It can tell me that energy can be neither created or destroyed.
It can’t tell me what happens when I die. It can’t tell me that anything exists at all really.
Exactly, I agree. “Scientists say …” usually makes most people accept whatever it is, without looking into the subject in depth.
I think it’s very naive to beleive we can know everything about the universe. I have to agree with Socrates. You can’t ever be 100% sure of anything. An apple falls because of gravity. But (and this may seem like a stupid example) you can’t prove that we aren’t in the Matrix, for example. I don’t beleive we are, of course, but we just can’t know that. The apple might not even exist.
I think at one point the scientific method doesn’t apply anymore. Don’t get me wrong, in general I tend to the science part of the science/faith line, but I’m open for new things.
The same way we can’t prove SD exists, we can’t prove it doesn’t.
@ Basilus: Now that’s more like what an argument should look like!
To the others:
Science should be subject to skepticism as well, of course. I was never saying that people should turn to science instead of psychics, because there are just so many things that science can’t explain, and I won’t accept anything under a scientific basis either unless there’s some good evidence, just like I won’t accept psychics. I’m continually frustrated with scientific studies that contradict each other, for example - like the studies that come out one year saying that eating a certain vegetable can reduce the risk of getting a certain cancer… only for another study to come out the next year saying it actually has no effect on that risk whatsoever. And don’t even get me started on scientific gender studies. But these studies often use a group sample of just a few hunded people and I wouldn’t call that reliable, particularly since there may be other factors contributing towards the person’s cancer risk, like weight or lifestyle. The study and the process is fair enough in the quest for knowledge, but presenting it as immutable fact is wrong.
However, I do believe in evolution, for instance, because I think there is a lot of evidence that argues for it that is hard to refute without believing in a creator. Plus it does fit in with common sense. When you look at a lot of other research that rose out of evolutionary studies and work backwards, everything fits. And one thing you have to give science is that it does put a lot of emphasis on proof (or rather, disproof) and evidence - it’s just that there happen to be a lot of things it can’t prove. This doesn’t mean it’s all useless and unreliable - we just have to look at it critically.
In the end, some belief will always come into whatever stance you take, because nobody can know all of the research that has taken place over history - there’s too much of it. Even a top physicist might know all about maths, but be almost completely ignorant in the field of history, or music, or biology, or sociology, and since he doesn’t have the time to research it himself, he’s got to take someone’s word for granted. So we can’t dismiss everything, or we’d never learn anything at all. All we can do is try and ensure that our information does come from experts in the relevant field (who in turn learnt their knowledge and methodology from other experts ,who learnt from other experts - in other words, not just someone who claims that they know the answers without any credibility). This way, we can at least verify a little that our knowledge comes from a reliable source.
I think largely the misconception is due to the idea that if it’s not psychic or spiritual, then it must be science. One or the other. This is also a narrow way of thinking. For all we know, there may very well be a third option out there that nobody’s even thought of. Don’t assume anything.
Anyway, I no long can remember the color of the ship even though if I had to take a guess it was white. I CAN however recall that we DID confirm the boat’s color and they were the same. It was sunny in my dream and sunny in her’s.
Never noticed my great grandmother just as she never noticed me. Is it possible I saw her and it didn’t click? Sure, same as her seeing a boy running on the ocean and it not clicking that it was me. I did see passengers though. Who’s to say YOUR dreams are so much more vivid than another’s? Now that’s subjective. Again, we did confirm the same things in our dream. And no, this wasn’t a grandparent who just wanted to humor a 7 year old kid.
Yeah, this is why I don’t post anymore. I’m sure I would have been soooo hurt by whatever Stormthunder said.
Do me a favor brother. For just one moment let go of your agnostic doubts. Believe for 2 minutes without proof that shared dreaming is real.
I’ve never once heard of a “controlled” shared dreaming account which doesn’t rule out in my opinion that having a pre-planned SD is impossible, but leads me to think 99.99999% of SD is spontaneous. Why that is I haven’t a clue. Let’s say my theory is correct. Chances of pre-planned SDs are 1 in a million. Once 2 people have that pre-planned SD, it will take a very long time to do it again, with themselves or another person. Even though SD is real, it would be next to impossible to prove.
As do I. With that said, I’m one of the few who doesn’t believe that evolution necessarily contradicts an afterlife, ESP, metaphysics, higher power(s), astral projection, etc. Only that it contradicts a few certain biased, metaphoric, hate mongering belief systems that have gone through many changes within the past two thousand years which I will not mention by name.
I’ll do it, if you do me a favor in return. I want you to believe for two minutes (without proof!) that there is an invisible elephant named Larry in my living room under the couch. And don’t just say you believe it. You actually have to believe it. Truly, sincerely, absolutely believe it. That’s basically what you’re asking someone to do when you say “believe without evidence.” You just happened to have picked something slightly more conversationally acceptable than invisible elephants.
Maybe you are capable of suddenly changing your beliefs on no evidence whatsoever, but I’m not. I need a good reason to believe in something.
If there experiments were properly controlled, and they attest to the fact that pre-planned SDs don’t happen, then it is beyond a reasonable doubt that pre-planned SDs don’t happen (again, if the experiments were done right…that means repeated, and repeated again, then the results submitted for peer review, etc). That’s how these sorts of experiments work. Other people (myself included) might not like the results of these experiments, but science isn’t about what we like, it’s about what’s true.
Those odds are probably the same or worse than the odds for ‘coincidental’ occurrences, so this scenario brings us back to square one. Now I really don’t mean to be rude, but c’mon, look at all the weird and unlikely stuff we’ve already figured out about nature: we’ve cracked mysteries that nobody in their wildest dreams would have even thought of a century or two ago. The idea of shared dreaming has, however, been around for thousands of years. If it were real, don’t you think there would be some good statistically sound evidence for it, rather than just sparse accounts turning up every once and a while (which is exactly what one would expect if coincidences were all that there were to it)?
The fact that SDs seem to “happen spontaneously” strongly points in the direction of coincidents. Because if they were “conicidental dream events that are similar in interesting ways, but still separate events in separate dreams” that is exactly what you’d expect: You can’t have them voluntarily, they just “happen” sometimes. Just like you sometimes get a yatzee.
Ofcourse it would be arrogant to rule out that SDing is possible, but it just seems to not be real.
I have in the past been quite unsure about whether precog dreams are possible, based on personal experience. I have had times when coincidents were much more common that usual. But I came to my senses. To explain things differently is to exercise the imagination for sure. And creationists seem to think this reduces the theory of evolution to a fairy tale. But it is unescapable that it just makes more sense to believe in explanations, that are based on observations, and do not rely on strange ideas that seem to contradict observations. Then again, people used to believe the earth was flat, based on the simple observation of the ground. In that case, “the earth is round” contradicts the observation. Does that mean the earth is “flound”?
Believe me I would be extatic if someone proved to me beyond a doubt that shared dreaming is real. And if you can, please do!
A phenomenon being extremely rare doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Just think about LD’ing: accounts were quite inexistent until 1900. There was one quote by Aristotle, one quote by St Augustine, one quote by Thomas Aquinas, the account of the marquis d’Hervey and a few incredible tales about the mysterious powers of himalayan yogis. It wasn’t even told about LD’ing in the occult litterature until 1867. The famous psychologist Havelock Ellis (at this epoch, everything which was said in the field of psychology had to be “validated” by his opinion to be considered as true) said: "I do not believe that such a thing is really possible, though is has been borne witness to by many philosophers and others from Aristotle…onwards.” Still in 1993, Pr Michel Jouvet (who was the main sleep researcher in France) didn’t believe in LD’ing though it had been proved my LaBerge around 1980… until he had 3 LD’s himself!
Why was LD’ing accounts so rare ? Because nobody knew it was possible. Because there was no known method to induce it. Because the people who got lucid dreams spontaneously (and this also replies to krakatoa) either didn’t think it was interesting enough to be told or they were afraid to be ridiculed and called crazy by others (just like it’s ridiculing people to tell that their possible SD accounts can be compared to invisible elephants named Larry).
Yet why is LD’ing quite widely accepted now? Because there were a lot of credule people who believed they could reach megapowers and such stupid stuff through what they thought to be “astral projections”. So that methods were invented, widespread, reports became more and more common, the phenomenon was more and more discussed until someone managed (though with difficulties) to publish his experiments in some important scientific magazine. If we had been waiting for skeptics experiments about the subject, LD’ing would still be unknown or ridiculed.
Supposing someone tells you: “an explorer found in Amazonia a blind ape which knows its environment only by echolocation like bats”. You would say: “how interesting!” But if someone tells you: “an explorer managed to film a sort of Big Foot in Caucasus”, you certainly would think: “another movie with tricks”.
That’s the reason why I think pseudo-skepticism (“needing a good reason to believe in something”) is just an attitude. Moreover this attitude is not scientific. Science has to be curious and open-minded, it’s not its role to say: “this thing can’t be possible just because I believe it can’t be possible”. Nor this attitude is rational: you just reject this possibility because SD’ing doesn’t look like normal, because some people already conflicts with it, because there is nothing now which may explain it, because it may vaguely be related to dubious beliefs or possibly used by them. I’m very impressed to see how the discussion curiously diverted onto creationism and evolution. I did’t think these subjects were related with SD’ing. And I don’t think neither it’s just a coincidence.
That’s why I’ve started “admiring” scientists that are looking into these things (SD’s, NDE’s, psychic stuff, etc.) without being afraid or minding what people say. Just because you give these “weird things” a chance to be possible doesn’t mean you’re not being scientific. They are in fact looking for the truth (whatever it may be), not just saying “it can’t be possible” and leaving it at that.
I’ve never had a shared dream, but it isn’t from lack of trying. I’ve seen characters in my dreams that favor who I want to link with, but I know they really weren’t the actual person.
But, do I think it is possible? I’ve looked at many accounts of what people consider dream linking, and I don’t see anything wrong with believing it is possible.
blind faith
): they are both vehicles, but very different ones indeed.
I don’t beleive we are, of course, but we just can’t know that. The apple might not even exist.