Oh, so now we're deflecting with "you don't know me"? Interesting strategy.
Before I address your numbered points, let's establish a few things since you seem to have conveniently forgotten the context:
On assumptions about your spiritual practice:
You're mad I made assumptions about your spirituality based on your own words - "I recently got into lucid dreaming" and "I dabble in spirituality myself."
But here's the thing: You came into OUR spaces making massive assumptions about an entire practice you admitted you know nothing about. You didn't research it, you didn't experience it, you saw some posts and decided "this is evil, this is bullshit, these people are delusional."
So you can make sweeping universal claims about thousands of people's experiences, but I can't point out that your own words suggest limited depth in this area?
You don't get to weaponize "you don't know my journey" while simultaneously claiming authority over everyone else's experiences. Pick a lane.
And if your spiritual journey IS deep and serious, why describe it as "dabbling"? You chose that word. I responded to what you presented. If that's inaccurate, that's on you for misrepresenting yourself.
On tone and personal attacks:
I am not accustomed to being rude or aggressive in posts. What I did was match YOUR energy.
"complete fucking bullshit"
"this shit is fucking evil"
calling people delusional
claiming we're "disconnecting from reality"
Those aren't calm, rational critiques of ideas. Those are aggressive moral condemnations.
So when you came in hot, condescending, and absolutely certain despite doing zero research, I responded in kind while also providing actual arguments.
You attacked ideas? No. You attacked PEOPLE. You called us delusional, evil, harmful. I called out your lack of qualification and intellectual laziness - which you've now admitted to.
That's not the same thing.
If I had no arguments and just insulted you, that would be ad hominem. I had extensive arguments about philosophy, anthropology, neuroscience, phenomenology - AND I pointed out you're not qualified to make the claims you're making.
Both can be true simultaneously.
On "young people can't know things":
Let me be absolutely clear since you seem to be twisting this - and you said something along these lines in an answer you deleted:
I never said young people are incapable of wisdom, education, or bringing valuable perspectives.
What I said was: YOU, specifically, are a novice. Not because of your age, but because by your own admission:
You recently started being consistent with lucid dreaming
You "dabble" in spirituality
You did ZERO research on shifting before posting
You admit you're being "intellectually lazy"
You "don't care enough" to engage with actual complexity
"WHO THE FUCK LET THIS CHILD SPEAK" means: who let someone with no experience, no research, and admitted intellectual laziness speak as if they're an authority while people who've studied this for years exist?
It's about novice vs. experienced, not young vs. old.
You're trying to hide behind age as if that shields your arguments from criticism. It doesn't. Your claims get evaluated on their merit - and you've admitted they have no merit because you did no research.
Being young is not the problem. Being confidently wrong while admitting you're lazy is the problem.
I am not trying to convert you to believing shifting is real.
I genuinely do not care what you personally believe about the nature of these experiences. You can think it's all dreams, all brain chemistry, whatever. That's fine. You're allowed to hold that position.
What I care about is you making absolute claims - calling it evil, harmful, delusional - based on nothing. No research, no understanding, no engagement with the actual arguments.
Your belief ≠ universal reality.
Now let's get to your numbered points:
"Lucid dreaming can be very vivid, have autonomous characters, and you can feel pain."
I never said it couldn't.
What I said - and what research documents - is that lucid dreaming has specific parameters and limitations that shifters consistently report experiencing beyond.
You're conflating "dreams can feel vivid" with "therefore all vivid experiences are dreams." That's reductive.
REM cycles limit LD duration. Even the longest documented LDs last minutes to maybe an hour of subjective time.
Shifters report experiences lasting subjective days, weeks, months with continuous narrative - waking up in the DR, going through complete days, sleeping there, waking up again the next day, with persistent memory and continuity across that entire timeline.
That's outside documented LD parameters. If you have studies showing LDs can maintain that extended continuity, provide them.
And before you say "but the brain can make time feel longer" - yes, time distortion happens in dreams. But the kind of extended, continuous, day-after-day narrative coherence shifters report is not documented in LD research. There's a difference between "this dream felt like it lasted forever" and "I experienced three consecutive weeks with sleep-wake cycles, consistent memory, and stable timeline progression."
LDs are notoriously unstable. Environments shift, physics break, things morph. This is well-documented - maintaining stability in an LD requires constant active effort and even then it's limited.
Shifters report stable, persistent environments with consistent rules that don't require reinforcement. You can leave a room, return hours later, and it's exactly as you left it. Geography stays consistent. Physics work reliably.
If you've been lucid dreaming for "six years," you know this. You know how much effort stability takes and how easily things slip. You know that dream environments don't maintain perfect consistency without active mental effort.
Here's where your argument collapses:
In an LD, it's YOUR dream. YOUR subconscious generating everything. You have varying control levels, but fundamentally, you have access to the control panel - you can train yourself to fly, summon people, change environments.
Shifters report lack of omnipotent control. You can't just will things into existence. People refuse you. Things surprise you in ways that contradict your expectations or desires. Events unfold that you didn't script and can't manipulate.
That's a fundamentally different phenomenological experience.
In an LD: You're the dreamer with varying control over your dream. In shifting reports: You're operating within rules you don't control, like any other person in that reality.
And I know you might say "well maybe you just THINK you don't have control but it's still your subconscious" - but that's an unfalsifiable claim. You're essentially saying "even when the experience differs from LD parameters in documented ways, I'm going to insist it's still LD because... I've decided it is." That's not skepticism, that's assuming your conclusion.
"Studies say shifters can't provide verifiable new information when tested"
Show me the peer-reviewed studies specifically testing reality shifting where participants were asked to retrieve verifiable information and systematically failed.
And here's the fundamental issue you're missing: Shifting cannot currently be measured or explained by science because it's intrinsically tied to consciousness - and we cannot adequately measure or explain consciousness itself yet.
You can't demand scientific proof of an altered consciousness state when science hasn't solved the basic problem of how consciousness works in the first place. That's not a reasonable standard - that's dismissing something because it doesn't fit into a framework that isn't equipped to address it yet.
Science can't objectively verify LOVE. Can't objectively verify PAIN to someone who isn't experiencing it. Can't objectively verify what the color red FEELS like to you versus me. These are subjective experiences that are real as experiences even though they can't be externally verified or measured in the way you're demanding.
And let's talk about the "studies" you're vaguely referencing. Most researchers who've looked at shifting:
Approached it with full confirmation bias - they saw TikTok teens talking about fictional realities and immediately wrote it off as maladaptive daydreaming or escapist fantasy without engaging with the actual phenomenological claims.
Only examined 2020-era shifting discourse - which was a MESS. The community in 2020 was nowhere near as philosophically developed or nuanced as it is now in 2025. Researchers looked at the most surface-level, cringe examples (yes, the Draco Malfoy stuff) and concluded that represented the entirety of the practice.
Didn't take it seriously from the start - they chalked it up to "Gen Z doing weird internet things" rather than actually examining the reported experiences, the cross-cultural parallels, the philosophical frameworks, or the consistency of phenomenological reports across different communities and time periods.
If researchers approach something assuming it's bullshit, guess what they're going to conclude? That's not science - that's bias confirmation dressed up as research.
Your "Six Years" Claim Exposes The Problem
You've been working on LD "on and off for around six years" but only "consistently a couple months ago."
So you've been inconsistently dabbling for six years, recently got serious, and you think that qualifies you to make absolute pronouncements about consciousness phenomena you've never experienced?
The timeline matters when you claim authority.
It's like someone who took sporadic piano lessons for six years, recently started daily practice, and now lectures concert pianists about technique. The sporadic experience doesn't actually translate to the expertise you're claiming.
Inconsistent practice ≠ deep understanding, especially when you admit you did zero research on the thing you're claiming to debunk.
2. MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION
"This whole argument is classic pseudoscience misinterpretations of quantum physics."
Go back and read what I actually wrote.
I never claimed many-worlds PROVES shifting or that Hugh Everett said "yeah you can hop to Hogwarts."
What I said was: IF you accept certain philosophical frameworks about consciousness and reality, THEN shifting can be understood within those frameworks.
I presented many-worlds as a conditional philosophical model: IF many-worlds is approximately correct, AND IF consciousness is not strictly localized, THEN shifting could be understood as consciousness accessing different configurations.
The Key Point You're Missing About Philosophy
Spinoza, William James, Bergson - these philosophers didn't "explain shifting" and I never claimed they did. They weren't shifters. They didn't know about shifting. They lived centuries ago.
What they DID was develop metaphysical frameworks about consciousness and reality that shifters can use to interpret and understand their experiences.
That's literally what philosophy IS - developing conceptual frameworks to make sense of phenomena. We use Kant to think about ethics. We use Descartes to think about certainty. We use these thinkers as lenses, not as authorities who proved specific modern practices.
When shifters reference these philosophers, we're not saying "Spinoza proved shifting exists." We're saying "Spinoza's metaphysical framework - that consciousness and matter are attributes of one infinite substance - provides a lens through which shifting experiences can be understood and contextualized."
You can disagree with those frameworks. But dismissing them as "insane bullshit" when you haven't read them isn't a philosophical position - it's ignorance.
And look, it's fine if you don't want to read Spinoza or Bergson or James. You don't have to. But then don't make sweeping claims about whether shifting can fit into serious philosophical frameworks when you admittedly don't know what those frameworks are.
"Even if Many Worlds did allow consciousness jumping, it still would not explain why you'd end up in copyrighted franchises invented in 1997."
Here's where you reveal you completely ignored what I actually said.
"Calling these traditions 'proto-shifting' is a stretch, yes - they're not exactly the same thing."
I acknowledged that modern shifting to fictional realities is not identical to ancient spiritual practices. I said that directly. You flew right past it so you could pretend I claimed they're equivalent.
What I actually said was that shifting inscribes itself into the same perennial philosophical logic - that consciousness can access alternate states/configurations/realities, that subjective experience is valid, that reality might be more than material waking life. Not that Hogwarts literally = shamanic soul flight.
You're attacking a position I never held because you can't engage with my actual argument.
This appeals to Occam's Razor, but you're applying it through your unexamined metaphysical assumptions.
"More likely" depends entirely on your framework:
Materialist framework: Vivid dream is simpler.
Consciousness-first frameworks (idealism, panpsychism, filter theory): Consciousness accessing alternate configurations is not inherently more complex than brains perfectly simulating reality with full sensory detail, autonomous characters, and extended time coherence.
Many-worlds framework: If all timelines already exist (which is what many-worlds actually proposes), then accessing them isn't "creating" anything - it's alignment/tuning, which could be argued as simpler than brains generating perfect reality simulations.
You're assuming materialism is default truth and calling everything else "unlikely."
But materialism is a philosophical framework, not proven fact. You have metaphysical commitments like everyone else - you just don't recognize them as commitments because you think they're "obvious reality."
They're not. They're your assumptions. And that's fine - we all have them - but own that they're assumptions, not proven truths.
"Philosophy does not negate science."
"But the nature of reality and like.. what shit is and is not happening and why is absolutely science."
No, that's metaphysics - the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of reality, existence, causation, and being.
Science operates within metaphysical frameworks. Science assumes:
Objective external reality exists
Our senses/instruments can reliably access it
Patterns are discoverable and regular
Materialism/physicalism is approximately correct
Those are philosophical assumptions science rests on, not conclusions science proved. Science can't prove these assumptions using science - that would be circular. They're the foundation science is built on.
"We don't understand consciousness, that is true, but only because we haven't finished studying it."
This is a faith-based claim.
You're assuming consciousness will eventually be fully explainable in materialist terms despite:
Decades of intensive research with zero progress on the hard problem
No proposed mechanism for how subjective experience arises from physical matter
Prominent philosophers and neuroscientists (David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, even some materialists) acknowledging this may be fundamentally unsolvable within materialist frameworks
You BELIEVE materialism will explain everything eventually. That's fine - you're allowed to have that faith. But don't pretend your belief is "rational fact" while calling other frameworks "stupid assumptions."
Your metaphysical commitments are showing.
"That's an appeal to ignorance."
No, you're making an appeal to future science - assuming that because science might explain something eventually, we should dismiss all other frameworks now and treat your preferred framework (materialism) as obviously correct.
I'm saying: Consciousness is currently unexplained. Science cannot currently measure or verify subjective consciousness experiences adequately. Multiple philosophical frameworks exist to address phenomena science can't yet touch. Dismissing subjective reports because they don't fit materialist assumptions isn't intellectually honest - it's philosophical dogmatism disguised as skepticism.
The fact that we can't scientifically measure shifting doesn't make it invalid - it makes it part of the broader category of consciousness phenomena that science isn't equipped to fully address yet. Just like we can't scientifically measure what red feels like to you, but that doesn't mean qualia don't exist.
"I might pick up those books just to see what other insane bullshit you guys are on but I really don't care enough at the moment"
And look, that's fine. You don't have to read philosophy if you don't want to. You don't have to engage with metaphysics or consciousness theory or any of it.
But then don't make absolute claims about practices grounded in those frameworks.
You're dismissing serious philosophical positions held by major thinkers across centuries without reading them while calling them "insane bullshit."
That's not skepticism. That's willful ignorance pretending to be rationality.
If you genuinely don't care enough to learn about the frameworks shifters use to understand their experiences, that's your choice. But then you also don't get to claim you've "debunked" shifting or that it's "just lucid dreaming" when you admittedly haven't engaged with the actual conceptual foundations.
"Ancient philosophies are completely fucking different from going to Hogwarts to kiss Draco Malfoy"
YES. I LITERALLY SAID THAT.
I explicitly acknowledged calling ancient practices "proto-shifting" is a stretch and they're not the same.
What I said was shifting inscribes itself into similar perennial logic about consciousness, alternate states, and reality being more than ordinary waking experience. The philosophical FRAMEWORK is similar (consciousness can access non-ordinary states, subjective experience is valid, reality is more than material appearance), not the specific practices or goals.
You ignored my nuanced position to attack "Hogwarts shifters."
"It's low hanging fruit and I'm taking it because I don't actually care enough to find a better target. It's intellectually lazy on my part but I don't care at the moment."
So you admit you're being intellectually lazy and targeting easy examples instead of engaging with actual complexity.
And yet you opened this entire thing claiming shifting is "fucking evil" and "harmful" and that you're "confronting people with reality."
Is shifting a serious harmful practice worth warning people about with moral urgency, or are you just picking easy targets for entertainment while admitting you're lazy and don't care?
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim something is dangerously evil AND ALSO admit you're too lazy to actually examine it beyond surface-level cringe examples.
On Harm - Let's Talk About It Honestly:
You want to invoke harm to justify your condemnation? Let's address it properly instead of using it as a rhetorical weapon:
Every spiritual or psychological practice has people who had negative experiences. Meditation can trigger depersonalization or trauma resurfacing. Therapy can retraumatize. Shadow work can destabilize people. Psychedelics can cause psychotic breaks. Religious practices can become obsessive and harmful.
Individual negative outcomes don't automatically make the entire practice "evil" or invalidate it for everyone.
You're targeting the most cringe examples (teens shifting to fictional realities) while ignoring the actual diversity and philosophical depth of the community. Yes, 2020 was messy. People jumped in without preparation or understanding, some creators pushed irresponsible methods, misinformation spread. That happened. That doesn't define everyone or invalidate the concept itself.
The shifting community HAS evolved. People call out harmful rhetoric. Toxic creators get held accountable. The discourse is more grounded and philosophically informed now than it was in 2020. Communities learn and improve - that's what healthy communities do.
But you wouldn't know any of that because you admittedly "don't care enough" to look deeper than the screenshots that made you mad.
Most harm comes from misunderstanding the practice itself - people taking metaphors literally, using extreme methods without proper grounding, following uninformed TikTok creators who had no idea what they were doing, treating shifting as pure escapism while ignoring their actual mental health needs, or approaching it with unrealistic expectations.
That's a lack of education and preparation problem, not proof the practice is inherently evil.
Acknowledging that harm can happen is important. Holding the community accountable for how information is shared is important. But using harm as a lazy excuse to dismiss the entire practice while admitting you're only looking at "low-hanging fruit" - that's not honest critique. That's weaponizing other people's struggles to support a conclusion you already decided on.
You made a confident post based on zero research.
You got called out with philosophy, anthropology, neuroscience, and phenomenological distinctions you didn't know existed.
"Actually I've been doing this six years" (but inconsistently, only recently serious)
"I have evidence I just didn't share it" (still waiting)
"I don't care enough to engage properly" (then why post with such moral certainty?)
"I'm being intellectually lazy" (your exact words)
"You don't know my spiritual journey" (while making massive assumptions about ours)
This isn't intellectual humility. This is realizing you're outmatched and trying to save face by pretending you were never really trying.
Provided no evidence initially
Target low-hanging fruit instead of actual complexity
Don't care enough for proper engagement
Haven't read philosophy you dismiss as "insane bullshit"
But you're still confident enough to call an entire practice "evil," "harmful," "delusional," "complete bullshit."
You positioned yourself as the voice of rationality "confronting people with reality," but you've admitted you:
Target easy examples instead of actual arguments
Don't care enough to engage properly
That's not rationality. That's arrogance covering ignorance.
Do the reading. Engage with the philosophy, anthropology, actual phenomenological research. Come back with substance. You don't HAVE to do this - but if you don't, then stop making absolute claims.
Admit you don't know enough to make the claims you made. Approach this with actual intellectual humility instead of condescending certainty based on nothing. Say "I don't understand this and I haven't researched it, so maybe I shouldn't be calling it evil."
Stop posting about it if you genuinely "don't care enough" - because right now you look like someone who cares very deeply but is upset they got called out and is trying to play it off as "I never cared anyway."
You wanted to "confront people with reality"?
This is me confronting YOU with the reality that:
You don't know what you're talking about (your admission)
You're intellectually lazy (your admission)
You provided no evidence (your admission)
You're targeting easy examples (your admission)
You still think you're right despite all of this
That's not rationality. That's not skepticism. That's ego protecting itself.
So pick one and commit. Either engage honestly or don't engage at all. But this "I'm right but also I don't care but also you're all delusional but also I'm being intellectually lazy but also shifting is evil" routine is intellectually incoherent.
If you come back with more substance, actual engagement with the arguments, and genuine curiosity instead of condescending certainty - great. We can have that conversation.
But if you come back with more "it's just dreams because I said so" while admitting you haven't done the reading and don't care enough to engage properly?
Then we're done here. Come back when you've actually learned something instead of just being loud.
