the BIG Shared Dreaming Topic

[mod] original title Shared Dreaming, can it be done?

[color=red][b]I decided to make this into a BIG topic about Shared Dreaming.

So from now on let this topic be known to all mankind as the BIG topic of Shared Dreaming. Let it contain all questions and stories and so forth about Shared Dreams. Let new topics about shared dreams be closed and directed to this one.[/b] [/color]

ok in about 1 week i have no school :cool: i am will have time to get back into lucid dreaming. So i have been thinking, can shared dreaming be done and has anyone done it, if so what how when etc. i have tryed many times with a group of friends ad we all hit a blank on dream recall the next day and normall we all can remember it well .

I also am interested if anyone is willing to join me on a little experiment.
a sharded dreaming one. If any one is roughly in the same time zone and is willing to give it a shot, post back email me or msn.

looking 4wad to ur responses.



is it possible yes. Will the majority believe you no. lol.

Both my mother and her sister, and my very best mate did it with her bestmate & GF.

none of them did it on purpose it just happened. Some people could say my friend “made it up” but why would my mother that would be like stupid.

hmm ok that has helped thanx a heap i will keep it in mind


Shared dreaming sounds amazing, but i believe it is too good to be true. There is absolutely no scientific evidence backing it up. I mean, i consider myself to be somewhat spiritual, but shared dreaming sounds the same as bad luck after breaking a mirror.

I thought the same thing until I was reading one of those books I got from the library in the car and it said that two scientists had tried it and successfully pulled it off and met the next day and both had the same conversation and stuff written down, and that lots of other people had success with it.

How exactly can you try to have a shared dream? Isn’t that a little like trying to win the lottery?

I’d like to see some documented evidence of this (as opposed to mere accounts, which don’t stand for anything). While the concept goes against everything we know about how dreams work (which, is actually everything), I’d have slightly less difficulty accepting the idea IF the participants were in extremely close proximity to each other. Otherwise, it just physically can’t happen. True, people emit a clear signature representation of what is happening in their head - but it certainly couldn’t be received at distances greater than a few feet. Even then, it wouldn’t be possible unless both people had IDENTICAL brain structures, which is impossible in itself.

There are few things I’d like to believe in more than shared dreaming. I often fantasize about taking my friends on a tour of my lucid world, demonstrating power beyond anything they’ve ever seen… but alas, I know where the line rests between fantasy and reality. I think a lot of people want to believe in certain things so much that they put aside all evidence against the idea, and quickly embrace any single individual proposed account of hope - then they repeatedly throw it at you time after time in the form of “I read in a book that…”

Let’s be realistic.

Don’t start freaking out on me i’m just posting what i read, i didn’t say i believed it but i found it interesting.

bah i belive it, some times u just ned to belive, some ones quote here, somethin ;lik weather u belive u can or u belive u cant ur right henery ford damn good and damn right


No reason not to believe it exist. Why believe it doesn’t when that won’t help you at all. If you believe it sure doesn’t hurt.

there’s also no scientific evidence proving otherwise either - To the believer to proof is neccessary, to the non-believer no proof is possible.

The only thing i can say is; Closed minds that chose not to believe things are possible are always right, because they will never experience it as they chose not to. Those who remain open minded to new possibilities, leave themselves open to new experiences and new possibilities. Leaving us with the true believers, who will eventually prove, to themselves at least, that they were right to believe - yet even if they don’t experience it doesn’t matter they will still believe.

That’s true in a lot of cases, but I think the 2 categories more appropriately represent: “relying on proven physical properties”, and “deluding yourself”. To say you believe in something, yet never experience it, isn’t being open minded. It’s being delusional.

I’m not really closed-minded, and very little would make me happier than to hear that some scientist has discovered a part of the human brain that WOULD make shared dreaming possible. I’d quickly change my view on the subject, and do what I could to develop it. The difference is though, I wait for there to be at least some stable possibility before I begin to accept it. I don’t blindly follow anything, which is what ‘being open minded’ is apparently all about.

There’s nothing wrong with opening yourself up to a possibility. It certainly is a more healthy way to live than simply dismissing everything and hiding from any evidence that subtly suggests that it might actually exist.

man, don’t get me wrong, i want to belive. but even if i tell myself i believe it, i know inside that it’s not.

Atheist has the following statement:

This statement seems a paradox to me. In science a paradox is not done. But i belive in the strenght of a paradox thats why i am sometimes sceptic about scientific evidence and scientific inquiry. Thus is that not some sort of illusion to.

Further: believing opens maybe a door for inquiry. You have a vision and go to discover it. Thats maybe the only thing you can trust, your own discoveries.
But i agree you must be very careful in believing to much, then you can drown in the purple world of illusion.

My personal opinion is that this issue relates with telepathy and maybe other areas (holistic view). I have often telepathy with my girlfriend. I must explore it more, but it seems to me like a fact. Stupid things, expectations and ideas we share over big distances.

A other thing is when i sit next to somebody and think about sexual things that person reacts significant, maybe a clue.
A other thing is eye contact. When you look to a person over a distance of 20 meters and you can see his or her eyes and he or she cannot see yours. You can see them flicker. We feel when somebody look.

I must confess i don’t have enormous experiences with lucid dreaming. Thus this are general remarks. Hopefully they are constructive.

Sorry for my insufficient englisch

i dont know, it sounds weird…but that what i thought about lucid dreaming in the start.
sciense is just a idea, a sytem based on what we know now. and honestly, how much do we know now? do we know anything, is the system totally wrong (like are really everything made out of atoms…to be basic) lets say we know 0.000^0.1 % of everything (ok i know you cant know anything…or can you, anyway…) based on this we can be pretty sure that our sciense is wrong, but hey, you have to start somewhere.
so this system is very easy to understand, like if a glass fall to the ground the sciense say, the wind blew it down, easy right? but then some hippie says no it was my dead mother who broke it couse she was angry…its a bit harder to believe but just becaouse its harder dont mean its the right one…when things start to move around the sciense cand explain it, but the hippie can…just a thought

I don’t have time to read this whole thing, but I have a link to contribute:

It gives a method for dreamwalking, or entering someone else’s dream.

I don’t see how that quote is a paradox. It’s basically saying that if you don’t believe you can do something, then you probably can’t - just because you have constructed a barrier in your mind which is hard to overcome. If you do believe you can do something (provided that your objective is actually possible) then you’ll give yourself the strength to do it just by believing you can. It makes complete sense when talking about lucid dreaming, so that’s why I display it.


I don’t think you can actually define science in that way. Honestly, it’s not accurate to just say “there are 10,000 things to know about the world, and we know 5 of them”. It doesn’t work that way. There are basic fundamentals of life that we were VERY fast to pick up and examine. These include:

-Particle interaction with relativity to speed resulting in collision (slamming your head into a tree hurts).
-Gravity. This was puzzling for a while, but eventually we were able to determine that large bodies of matter attract each other.
-Construct of light. It wasn’t easy to analyze, but eventually we found that light moves at a measurable speed, and so much actually be a type of particle.

I could go on, but that’s not the point. The point is that these are the most obvious fundamentals of physics, and are common enough to be examined and tested in every situation so we can learn how to predict these forces for the purpose of staying alive. Once we have a good understanding of how a particular element of physics works, we can then use it to our advantage - for example, you wouldn’t be reading this right now unless we had examined the nature of electricity and learned how to use it to our advantage.

You’re basically saying that it’s possible everything we know about science is wrong, or that we know so little that it’s worth disregarding altogether. This is just plain silly. We know an extraordinary amount about the physical world - and it’s extremely rare that something will happen that we can’t attribute to a previously examined physical parameter. If an object falls from a table, science can say “Well, vibrations in the table could have led to the object moving towards the edge and falling. Alternatively, the wind which is still apparent now that I take notice, could also have blown the object off the edge.” A ‘hippie’ (as you put it) might instead look at it and say “A ghost pushed it, as a reminder that I haven’t been smoking enough pot lately. Alternatively, it’s a sign from God that I am special in some way.” One of those conclusions has at least SOME realistic supporting evidence.

Science wasn’t intended as an alternative to religion. It was intended to develop an understanding of the way things work. Disproving popular religion just kinda happened on the way by accident. Not our fault.

Im going slightly off topic here but, could shared LD’s be an experience on the astral plane? apparently the astral plane can be manipulated much like an LD, erm, so what im saying is that the 2 people are having an OBE and this experience triggers another plane in which is there domain to master.
Did that make sense? it’s hard to put into words :bored:

BTW: How has science disproved religion? Do you mean about the theory of evolution? or as to how the universe was created?
Anyway I think that science is a good thing because it helps us understand stuff (Man im all over the place today :bored: )

Science doesn’t disprove religion in general, but notice how I said popular religion. Such ideas as the global flood, the creation of humans only 6 thousand years ago, evolution, and so on. Let’s be serious here for a moment, those claims are all entirely worthless now. Evolution is a well-established fact, and various other elements of common creationist ideals are flawed.

Anyway, that’s probably as much as I’m going to contribute to this thread. Just my view, in case anyone wants to read it.

Science is just one way of discribing probing the universe there are many others like art which value human experience etc etc. I love science though its a system able to be understood by any race/religion and language and is as impartial as you can get (sometimes).

I always think of science in terms of its unveiling of the truth and how that can really turn views on there heads.

Take Atheist gravity, originally not even thought of as it was just assumed thats what happens. Then Newton tells us that gravity pulls objects to the earth and science assumes gravity has invisible waves of force.

Then Einstien says that time and space cannot be separated and that the earth is actually warping space time, giving rise to gravity. Science now thinks its gravity is working via a type of particle not yet discovered (the graviton)

Then science finds out that the mass of the earth or any other large body is not giving the theoretical force of gravity they would predict. That is untill some clever clogs realises that there are other universes (or branes) that lie in higher dimentions and hug our own like a glove that can explain the faulty figures.

And so on and so on and so on…

Each observation is right at the time it was made because theory or mesurement was not able to probe further and when it did it can be seen that the old theory was only the starting pice in the jigsaw.

This is a cool website for scientists to talk about their own ideas or actual experinces of psi etc without proffessional critism. Its hard to over estimate what a ruined reputation can do for a scientist if they voiced their views in academic circles.

This kind of preducice comes not just from the scientific establishment but also from websites like this or others with many people who have a belief in path not uncovered (or uncoverable) by science. Both sides can get too intrenched in there own camp and are not able to see the others point of view.