But we do create people all the time. We need to build concepts of other people. Form identities. Its not as if others perfectly imprint their entire being on you. People have to “filter” themselves into your perception. With what is filtered, we use to build, or “create” others.
more later…
I agree there. However, as far as I can tell, nOOdles point is that we really create all and everyone around us, and thus, if we accepted this, we could change the world around us as we like.
nOOdle may try to believe he won’t be hit on the head, but I’d rather wear a helmet, thank you.
…And that’s exactly the philosophy that gets you hit on the head.
I can’t see how in around 200 posts, that so many people can still -not- see that this is a wholistic, theory, and in ‘truth’ cannot be adopted wholistically.
All of these ‘so i can fly if i think i can’ or ‘yeah so if i belt you you wont feel it?’ statements simply mean that you are trying to digest the theory as a lifestyle, which is part of the theory, however the other part dictates that no human can adopt this theory to 100%.
Everyone creates and destroys things, i can’t help it if you’ve created so much neurosis of elements of your reality through time that you can’t possibly reverse them.
Im not saying YOU can fly. I’m saying it is POSSIBLE you can fly. But whether you are equipped mentally or not is your issue.
What scares me more is that you are all on a forum about ‘doing the impossible’ (lucid dream elements that contradict neurotic reality) and yet as soon as someone suggests something impossible, you dismiss it. That seems highly hypocritical to me.
However that is okay, because humans are very hypocritical. If you actually analysed the theory of what i was talking about rather than taking stabs at it, you’d see that the theory has to take into consideration the hypocrisy of human nature, including the fact that adopting this method wholistically is impossible for a human.
These threads are supposed to explain the theoretical possibilities, and how you can use the knowledge of what they are, to INCREASE your control/abilities, through appreciation of knowing what ‘unlimited’ is, and how it fits into the hypocritical human ‘limits’. This is something to tip your hat to and learn a lesson from, and gain practical elements, not to wander around thinking you are a messiah and can shoot fireballs.
I don’t say you are wrong. From my standpoint, I cannot.
It could be that your theory is completely true. However, up to a certain point (death / severe harm), there is no way of telling the difference between changing your world in major ways (your view) and going mad / decoupling your model of reality from reality itself. So, I cannot possibly detect a difference between the two without facing severe harm.
In physics, if two theories are equivalent in the results they predict, they can be treated equal. Usually, the simpler theory, or the one that makes less strange assumtions is preferred.
Also, you say we shouldn’t get worked up about those “impossible things”… well, unless we talk about those, what difference does it make if I create/control my own world or not? That I am responsible for everything? Well, how should I be responsible for the casualties if I cannot stop a terrorist in Israel? That would require mind control or some other “impossible thing” i shouldn’t get worked up about.
Also, it’s not logical that this view would create a more compassionate mentality. If I created all those people, why not have some fun and see how many ways I can find to kill them? I created them, so I can do with thm what I like, right?
Just being provocative.
I love those theories that only exist because its impoassible to prove something is wrong.
therefor his theories are as valid as that of God, Atheism or even the existence of Lucid dreams, which is what i have come to believe this forum is about
the most ironic thing about n00dle is that everyone could have the same viewpoint
Hmm… I haven’t read everything in the topic but from what I’ve seen I think some people are blowing what Noodle said way out of proportion. I came to that same realization a week ago, but it is not that I control everything in the world, I control everything in my subconscious. That is the key to lucid dreaming, coming to that realization, but it is also one of the things that many people fail to grasp.
I’ll actually try the “i AM Lucid” tech tonight
I’ve been MILDing for a few weeks, so somewhere is the subconscious of mine it’s gotta be building up 
I think I finally understand what Noodle is saying (and Noodle, correct me if I’m wrong) and I think I have a little bit that I can expand upon it (unless Noodle has already said this, I’ve only read page one of the first topic and page one and 3 of the second).
In my opinion there are three levels of existence from any given person’s perspective, but this perspective is different for every person. There are the perspectives of being, knowing, and not knowing.
The perspective of being is the easiest to explain because it is the focus of the entire site of LD4all. The perspective of being is what goes on inside of your own mind (your dreams, your thoughts, your desires, etc.). I think there are two degrees of being: those entirely cut off from the world (mainly your dreams but also your thoughts) and those with direct consequences in the world (such as your desires).
With the first degree, you have complete and utter control; nothing you do can affect anything outside of your mind. With the second degree you have utter control as well, but it is unwise to exercise that control in some cases because it can have unfortunate consequences on things other than your mind such as your body. You can ignore and control your desire for food as long as you want, but the fact is that eventually you will either have to eat or die.
The second perspective is knowing, and that basically encompasses everything that you know such as eating, walking, or some history test. I believe that there are 3 degrees of knowing, actions of your own making, actions of the present that are not your own, and actions of the future.
With the first degree, actions of your own making, you have complete control, since they are controlled by yourself (your mind, which you have complete control over). The second and third degrees are about the same (in fact they probably should be one degree), they both can be influenced by the first degree, your own actions, but depending on your actions, the result is ultimately up to the person who is doing the action because to his perspective, it is the first degree of the second perspective which he has complete control over, unless something outside of it overrides it, but there are very few things that can absolutely override your actions so that you have no choice.
The third perspective is not knowing. It’s fairly self explanatory: you don’t know that the action is occurring. There are three degrees of this that are the action could have been known, could have been inadvertently affected, or it can’t be known.
The first degree is probably fairly common, but no one can prove it because the action isn’t known and therefore there is nothing to prove. The same for the second and the third. The third degree is probably fairly uncommon though because there is most likely always an action that will have a different outcome that will have a different outcome etc. I think that as you grow older rarity of the third degree increases to the point that almost everything could have been possible.
Yep, that’s what goes on in my mind 
Hmm… I think this should be renamed KILD (Knowledge Induced Lucid Dream) or Leap of Faith Technique. Stop Trying To Dream just sounds too aggressive/forceful.
Edit: This is a biiiiit off topic 
I sort of feel guilty for triple posting, but I couldn’t entirely bring myself to edit a 2+ year old post and add in a quote (though I did edit it for a typo), so here I go:
So… I just reread some of Noodle’s posts and it turns out that I did not understand what Noodle was saying in those earlier posts. But now I think I do.
[ 
Stupid personality, making me take forever to compose my thoughts grumbles]
So… yes. Well, actually, no. Noodle’s idea is a paradox. A very interesting paradox. By definition, it is wrong for Noodle. But at the same time, it cannot be proven wrong. This is because Noodle is not trying to be Einstein, he is trying to be Descartes. “I think, therefore I am.” I know that I exist, therefore (assuming Noodle’s theory) I am the creator of everything and you are all extensions of me.
However, you cannot know this. If you are, in fact, real on the same level that I am real, then you cannot possibly know that I am real, therefore you must think that you are the creator rather than me. Or Noodle. I already know that Noodle does not control everything because I already know that I exist, therefore at the very least I am not an extension of Noodle as Noodle believes. By the same logic, if you truly exist in the Descartes sense, then you know that I am not the creator of everything in Noodle’s theory. Though you might be. Though I already know that you are not.
Now back to the paradox. Maybe. If I can remember what it was… Yes! So I already know that Noodle is pointlessly exerting his will in an effort to control existence since I know that I am real and therefore am not an extension of Noodle. Noodle, however, if he is in fact real, has no way of knowing that I am in fact real as he must assume that nothing and no one except he himself is in fact real, just as I must assume the same about him. If, however, we are both wrong and both of us is real, then neither of us controls anything.
That is the paradox: whoever states this theory to you, assuming your existence, is, invariably, wrong, regardless of whether they actually exist or not.
I guess that’s not a paradox, but I’m not exactly sure what it is.
That was fun 
n00dle won’t probably come back to this forums, but I want to thank him anyway. He has showed me so much, and now I’m really confident i will reach my objectives. I think i owe him an explanation of what he was trying to say, yet another interpreter to his words. But I’ll try anyway.
We can initially assume there actually exists a God out there, or some kind of supreme entities that keep watch over us and keeps a log of all that happened, meaning his log is THE objective reality, the external view over our actions.
However, no one known has access to that, and thus we are constrained within our own way of seeing reality every day; each and everyone of us indeed possesses a way of reasoning that interprets everything that happens around him.
Let’s say you wanted to offend someone because he’s very stupid, and thought of a clever insult: you would meet him, get in a conversation with him, and then use your offense; but let’s pretend he didn’t quite get it, and thought it was a compliment instead. In his way of seeing things, he did not receive any offense; in his reality, the conversation was positive. He will walk away happy. Reality is only as important as what your perception tells you about it.
The way we see reality is the only point of view we’ll ever possess - we can’t detach ourselves and truly examine objects with different eyes. We have our reality, and we keep coherent to it. Look at conspirationists - they look for theories, find proofs, see every government act as a attempt to subdue and control us - while the debunkers do the exact opposite, see these theories as false and read the same facts in a completely different manner. Some think there is a single truth, but even if we asked the source, the author of these facts, would he be even able to answer the truth? Will there even be a single one? Man is often guided by multiple motivations at once in his actions, many of which are often contradictory and are kept hidden even to himself.
People have different views about what surrounds us - talking about matter, strings, souls, brain in jars, which of any of these is true? The fact is, we have no means to ultimately find out, thus the only thing we can cling onto is our perception of reality. By choosing what to believe in, we define our reality; in a sense, we create it (or more often, we let someone create it for us).
When n00dle says he created people - he means he created the scheme, in his mind, of people different than himself - instead of seeing them as just a bunch of piled atoms, for example, which walk around, doing nonsense and saying gibberish; in the same sense, he creates the events too - if anything happens outside himself, he can or cannot accept them as facts, instead of IE. a joke the local news is playing on him. In his world, he created everything that surrounds him - in the sense he built the schema to interpret and use reality. If someone could not feel pain or love - would he see see reality in the same way as you? When you light up a TV, you would see aliens shooting lasers at monsters; a monkey, or a savage, looking at it for the first time, would probably only see flickers of light of a strange lamp. And guess what - you and the savage are both right, and as such, you both were wrong, as there is no single way of defining reality, reducing it to single statements.
Now, if i believe in telekinesis, I’ll look articles that support my view, look for videos that show some telekinesis, and even if some videos are false, i won’t actually look for the trick, but just enjoy the show and see into them the power of the mind at work. I’ll try to recreate it at home, and actually see either success in my tries, or the fact i need more training. In every case, telekinesis is a fact for me that cannot be denied easily. It will be the opposite for a disbeliever - they’ll see a trick even if they actually didn’t, and stay with his vision that’s all a bunch of bull. We only see what we want to see, most of the time. In the same way, people can get carried away with their vision of reality, and think people can fly, use powers, and such. To him, this is true; if he really wants to see people fly, he can. To others, this would be completely false, and would want to prove him. That’s what science and experiments are for, isn’t it? Indeed, science is the attempt of humanity to gain a solid common ground to define and understand reality, but there are fatal flaws to this: science doesn’t write itself, nor has a conscience of its own; that means, any result of an experiment can be only as objective as the scientist observing it; and, the only place where science possesses any meaning is the human mind, and as such, everyone is still free to accept it or refuse it, maybe for no particular reason, without any supreme entity slamming a big book of Science on their head, telling them to join the righteous belief.
Every conscience has its own vision, that is not the objective truth, nor is the vision of anyone else.
Everyday, we bend reality to our preconceptions and define it; to us, it is true only what we believe it is; this, coupled with the fact (which you are free to disbelieve, even if it will be detrimental for you, at best) that every single human mind is the single most amazing entity in the universe, capable of infinite wonders and possessing the ability, if it really wants, to succeed at everything it applies into.
Obviously, this works best within the human mind itself, as it truly is the only entity that can sets its own limits, and be as free and powerful as it believes it is.
With belief, medieval people actually saw the hand of supreme good and evil in every little fact in their lives; they saw demons possessing people, saints killing dragons; now, if you know for sure there is actually a world where any of this this stuff can happen if you want it to, and you are participating in it every single night, do you quite realize how close you are to actually getting to your goals?
You want to get control over your dreams; but dreams are a creation of your mind, so you must first gain control of yourself; and to gain control of yourself, you must first know what you are actually doing, what is your place in life, you must learn to know yourself, every single moment.
You wish to gain control of your dreams; but our mind doesn’t differentiate between reality and dreams; to our mind, what matters are the sensory inputs, and you get those both IWL and in dreams. To us, life is indeed made of the stuff of dreams; so, if you want control over your dreams, that means you want control over your life. Take the steering wheel into your hands, keep a look on the map and the compass and decide for yourself where to go. If you want to be lucid in dreams, be lucid in life - don’t say “I’ll be lucid later”. Be lucid NOW. Don’t think “I want to be lucid”, because there is no try. Just be. Believe you can, and you’ll be right. Become the dream, and the dream will be under your control. Make life YOUR dream.
I’m out Thanks for reading.
EDIT: moved a few paragraphs around.
Tos, I’m going to have to disagree with your premise-- I assume nothing, not even a God-- but I am so glad you resurrected this topic of discussion. Not sure if n00dle is a solipsist or a narcissist (he’s almost certainly just making an argument to get us thinking), though I think we all agree that confidence is huge to lucid dreaming.
To say we are all gods (in the n00dlian way) contradicts itself, though. If there is more than one independent conscious human, then making our confident choices into objective reality cannot work because they could conflict. In that case, the only way there can be more than one real person is if we do not interact, each in our separate dreams.
That’s what I don’t like about solipsism-- it is lonely. I enjoy my lucid dreams, but when I am lucid I forget about any DCs I may have been talking to, because I know they are not other people. Dreams are great fun for myself, and I am learning about myself, but what is the point if I do not then wake up into a world where I can share my joy and discoveries with others?
I don’t know if there is any element of objectivity to reality. I don’t know how real our dreams are compared to reality. I would like to put forth the theory that dream worlds and the “real” world are equally real, made of the same stuff. Each of our dream worlds are solipsistic, but then we travel to the waking world to give our inner worlds meaning, each creating our own subjective reality, but somehow with some objective elements to the universe.
Wow, I can’t believe I missed this when it was active. All I can say is, I’m very proud of myself for creating noodle.does he still post around here? I’ve noticed he has a guest account, so I can’t MSG him.
This is an awesome topic. I love the fact that the last couple of posts see the thread the most clearly. No doubt, that’s because we could read the whole thing through in one run (or read it twice and think about it a bit ).
N00dle had a lot of interesting ideas, but he also made a lot of contradictions. He was playing devil’s advocate throughout, which is a fine position to play. 
I’ve always enjoyed solipsism, it fascinates me. Applying solipsism to the concept of LDing is only natural. Basically, there is only one dreamer, me. Everything I see is me and everyone I speak to is me. When someone argues with me and says that it is THEY who are dreaming, I laugh at them, of course it isn’t, I’m the dreamer and they’re the DC. So, how is this different from waking life?
Every thought and every piece of knowledge is in my head. Other people tell me that THEY are thinking too, but I can’t prove it. So, I take one more step and say that only I exist and that everything I see is me, when I’m awake. Things I learn is still me, revealing things I already know or make up as I go. The only real difference is that this “dream” is incredibly more stable and enduring than my night time dreams.
This makes an interesting idea. But, if I use my waking “dream” as a basis to tell me when I’m dreaming at night, how do I get myself lucid while I’m awake? Do I look for absurdities and try to do RCs? If so, what is reality so that I can check it?
My two quotes in my signature sum up N00dles LD induction method:
“Believe you can, believe you can’t; either way, you’re right.” - Henry Ford
“Don’t ‘intend’ to change something, ‘expect’ to change it.” - Lucid Mike
I find this problem occurs in my LDs all the time. I was to meet a specific DC, so I search for them. That’s intending. I shouldn’t concentrate on the searching, I should just find him. If I want to make the sun rise, I shouldn’t concentrate on trying to make it rise, I should just believe it is so and be done with it. (Click here to see this in practice) Belief, in an LD, is everything.
As an induction method, I should just state, “I am lucid.” and be done with it. Stop trying to be lucid and just be lucid.
So, back to our god complex and this thread, why shouldn’t 100% belief work in this world too? But, if you believe it 100% and it happens, then you already knew it would and it wouldn’t be a surprise and wouldn’t be worth talking about. 
lol i read what noodle said and the only new knowledge i gained from reading these posts was the word “solipsism” (atleast i know there’s a proper word i can call this.) i mean all this guy did was take X elements of life, use his insight to understand them, then link them to this and that, finally he could pin-point his location on the tree of knowledge and apply it to all. im not trying to scorn him though, if i was abit more fluent with my writting i would have explained the same thing (ofcourse “i would have’s” remain irrelivant the second there said.) if you can, imagine a young child that plays imaginary games who grows up still holding on to that natural flow of life. while some aspects of the “outside world” has purged his sense of reality, the flow is still there. the unsaid, unlabeled understanding of the kid has had to adapt with a world of fake truth and false objects in such a way that isn’t complete overthrow to his natural flow of life. ofcoarse now he watches all aspects of his life with surgical precission, nothing will flourish or die, but instead stand still because of the knowledge gained as he watched his true self, subjectivly, take on the objects of the “outerworld.” he knows he is the outerworld and the outerworld is he, because he saw the inner and outer clash and merge in his early teens. 1+1=2…duality happened, before that it was just him in his own univerese…1, very simple, so much so that it makes the illusion of complexity which complements the simpleness with intricacy…because paradoxes don’t quite. untill God makes himself seen, we must look to the most real evidence of god which is ourselves then the world around us.
and yes i used myself as an example because it is my most reliable source to date.
I still don´t understand why sooo many people have discussed n00dle´s statements.
Like some of them said, the real existence of other people cannot be proven;
AND
if you are alone or not does not change ANYTHING
It is completly irrelevant because all one should do or not , think or not, be or not is absolutely untouched!
Its nice to think about cool possibilities like it
But if you believe it or not has no effects, so there is nothing to discuss.
(Exept you didn´t got the theory really, but I think most people just didn´t thought the thing to the end)
Well, that’s what we were trying to do, either understand the thing better, or explaining it to others, as n00dle’s words can be a little too provocative for some to bother analyzing 
I haven’t read the main post but based on n00dle’s replies, I kind of remembered what Deepak Chopra is saying in one of his books. Well, based on my understanding there are microcosmic and macrocosmic worlds. Our body system is like a microcosmic world. All of the cell’s functions, how different cells work together to maintain homeostasis… plus inside the cell maybe works another world. The outside is another world.
n00dle said he ‘created’ people, that’s because the outside world is a reflection of who we are. The outside is just merely mirroring the inside. We create what we see because what we see is who we are.
n00dle may sound insane to some, but I believe he is pertaining more on consciousness, on awareness. People call it the New Age thinking. But it’s not supposed to be thought though, it is a sort of state of being. Some completely do not understand because they are not yet ‘awakened’.
Anyway in relation to lucid dreaming, the point is, as I’ve read in another forum, that natural lucid dreamers don’t try to be lucid. They ARE lucid, even in waking life. They are conscious and aware most of the moments, and not bombarded by inner monologues of the mind.
Well I’m really not one to talk, just sharing my point of view. My feet are still on the ground hehe
I recommend readings from Eckhart Tolle and Deepack Chopra on this subject. ^^