Jump to content

Talk:Lucid dream/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

changing your subconscious

Some people on Ld4all wanted to change their subconscious, such as eliminate phobias, is this possible?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.173.227 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 June 2006.

Things to do in a lucid dream

We appear to have the problem of an ever-expanding list of "things to do in a dream". Any objections to removing this section altogether? Is there any information in this section which ought to be kept? Mdwh 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest reducing it to a minimal number of general ideas instead. --Zoz (t) 14:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a great section since the possibilities are not obvious. Specific dreams should be removed, but general activities should be left here. Herbys 05:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I reduced the list to 4 items, linked its wikibooks page and moved material to the talk page there. Considering there might be objections to the removal, I'm moving the whole section here as well. --Zoz (t) 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
While the list was becoming too extensive, I don't think a list of four activities gives an idea of the range of possibilities. I think the aim of this section should be to enable a person that has never had a lucid dream to get an idea of the possibilities, and also to give active lucid dreamers ideas to explore. For instance, Experimentation (which was not the same as Real Life Rehearsal. Rehearsal refers to acting things that you intend to do in real life, while experimentation is basically about doing things that you wouldn't do) is not included in any of the four categories. Neither is spiritual practice. Herbys 05:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article. I too think that the aim of this section should be to enable someone who's never had a lucid dream to get the idea of the possibilities, but I don't think it should be turned into an "Advices/Ideas for Lucid Dreamers" section. Such advices, detailed ideas etc. should be in wikibooks imo. --Zoz (t) 11:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I read your article a few days ago, I found it very interesting, and decided to try to lucid dream. And it worked! I lucid dreamed for the first time in my life last night! It was amazing, and even though I felt excited throughout the dream, I didn't know what to do exactly. I therefore urge you to please incorporate the "Things to do in a lucid dream" into the main article. It really belongs there) M.efimov 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Supernatural acts: Lucid dreamers, realizing they are dreaming, then go on to realize that normal limitations like gravity or "solidity" no longer apply, and it's possible to perform acts that can't be done in real life (e.g.: running faster than 50 miles per hour, or staying underwater for lengthy periods of time).
    • Flying: One of the more common and pleasurable activities of lucid dreamers is flying. Many lucid dreamers report they are able to float, fly and transport themselves anywhere in the dreamworld at will. With practice, so called "impossible" feats such as flying at supersonic speeds, or flying through objects are possible.
    • Transformations: Some people believe that (after some practice) one can transform one's dream-self into real or fictional animals, or any number of other forms, including other people or general sex change. Some also claim to have tried sensory experiences not normally achievable while awake, such as 360 degree stereo vision, sonar (bat) vision, and being able to modify one's body to try out being a different weight, height, gender, age, etc.
    • Superreality observation: Since during a dream the dreamer's senses are not limited by physical or mental constrains, it is possible to observe reality "in high definition". While looking at a tree from a big distance, for example, the dreamer should be able to see detail in each an every one of its leaves, without even having to "zoom in".
  • Spiritual practice: Some religions claim that lucid dream states give the dreamer a special kind of access to the spiritual world. By practicing prayer or meditation during a lucid dream, the dreamer can gain access to mystical states of awareness that would not be accessible from the waking state. Such practices are sometimes classified as "dream yoga".
  • Real-life rehearsal: Since the mental and physical effects of lucid dreaming are almost indistinguishable from real-life, dreamers can rehearse various things (such as stage performances, soccer moves, etc.) in a lucid dream and readily apply that to real-life. It is possible to essentially repeat the events of a lucid dream as many times as the dreamer desires. As such, the dreamer can explore the effects of any course of action within that dream and/or refine their course of action to get a desired effect without resorting to directly willing the desired effect to happen.
  • Experience enjoyable activities (which may or may not be impossible in real life): E.g., having sex in any number of pleasing or fantastical ways, eating impossibly large meals while still enjoying each morsel as if it were the first, conversing with imaginary characters from books or movies, visiting faraway places, etc...
  • Playing God: Because a dream is not actually real, it is possible for one to completely alter the nature of the universe within one's dreams and re-shape the reality of that dream however they wish. One can, in effect, become omnipotent within a lucid dream. This can sometimes be quite a "power trip". While it is often difficult or impossible to manipulate people in a dream to act as you want, it is normally possible to just force them (physically) to do what you want.
  • Creating an environment and letting a story unfold: You can put yourself at a starting environment (after opening this door, behind there will be a dungeon) and explore the place. You don't need (and actually can't) design the whole environment, and the details will pop out without your conscious intervention, and it is common that surprises often occurr in the dream. Be careful not to lose the control of the dream in this situation, as it is very easy to fade into a normal unconscious dream while following a story.
  • Artistic Ideas: Looking for or requesting "art", such as in the form of sculpture, painting or song, allows the dreamer to recall upon wakening new "art" ideas.
  • "Dream-time": It is believed by some that when one is proficient at lucid dream control, a person can extend the dream. A person could spend an entire week in a dream, while only being asleep for one night. Nevertheless, most lucid dreaming (and possibly normal dreaming) occurrs in close to "real time"

LD4all Gone?

Ld4all.com is refusing to load, as are its forums. Does anyone know what happened? Datameister 04:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It works for me --Zoz (t) 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It came back. Now I'm having some trouble again, though...but it may just be my Internet connection, which has been giving me troubles all day. Datameister 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
LD4all's server went down because of a power outage, so a temporary forum was put up. We've moved servers now, and everything is back to normal.

An unsolved problem in neuroscience?

From Unsolved problems in neuroscience:
"Sleep: What is the function of sleep? Why do we dream? What are the underlying brain mechanisms? What is its relation to anesthesia?"
Should we add Lucid dreaming to Category:Unsolved problems in neuroscience? --Zoz (t) 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it should to be a neuroscience problem. Lucid dreaming is an "event" that one chooses to do while one is dream. Maybe I'm not thinking about it the right way. Sjschen 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dream where I became lucid during the dream

I had a dream last week in which the dream stopped as if paused. I remember looking at the scene checking it out top to bottom, zooming in and out places of interest (like a 2D picture). Then I remembered that I had heard somewhere that dreams are interupted at times and then resume. At that point, I felt as though the next part of the dream was getting downloaded into my brain. I could visually see the entire dream flash before my eyes like a reel of film being wound up. Then the rest of the dream started playing. So while the next part of the dream got started, I decided to keep a note to myself that when I woke up that I should remember what happened since it was such a strange event. I probably would not have noticed this but the dream was in that still frame for what seemed to be an eternity and I eventually was so bored at looking at it for so long. I am wondering if it is normal to have dreams stop like that or that maybe I really was in a state of being between dreaming periods or something.

Kevin

Picture?

Is the picture of the girl sleeping near the top of the article really necessary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.62.45 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 June 2006.

No it isn't. But I don't see why that picture should not be there. --Zoz (t) 11:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree it's a good picture, but the caption is absurd. The girl isn't even asleep--she's posing--so what's with the "and hasn't reached REM sleep yet"? Ckerr 14:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree so I removed it. I think it would look a bit better with (an accurate) caption though, but right now I don't feel creative. --Zoz (t) 15:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to think of something good as well. It is suggested that we have one per WP:WIAFA. Morphh 17:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That picture of a girl sleeping is pointless. Its just a girl sleeping. Nothing to do with lucid dreaming.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.102.166 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 July 2006.

Well, it's just that the article looks so freaking dull, especially considering what's it about. It's hard for one to believe that lucid dreaming is a mind-widening experience if the only visual thing we can come up with is that boring REM graph. If it's necessary that the image is more closely related to the subject, someone just take a picture of yourself holding your nose or something. - Sylph 19:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The only other thing I could think of besides someone sleeping would be an artists interpretation of a lucid dream, that would probably be more interesting. I looked, but couldn't find anything that was fair use...LilDice 17:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the picture. I don't see it as a pointless pic. Sleeping is the point as it is critical to having a lucid dream. Unless you have a pic of an actual lucid dream, I think the act of sleeping is completely relevant to discussing dreams. Morphh 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
How about something from the movie "Waking Life", like a scrambled clock? The movie's about lucid dreaming, and has instruction concerning some of the tip-offs to look for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.186.101.234 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I truly think that it doesn't matter if a picture of someone sleeping is put on the page. The problem with the Waking Life thing is that not everyone has heard of that- I know I haven't. So I think that a picture of anyone sleeping would be fine. If nothing can be agreed on , perhaps it would be best just to forget about a picture at the top- Just a suggestion :) --EdwardCullen II 00:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Priapism

I removed the unsourced claim that lucid dreaming has been used for autoinduced priapism. I suspect it was a joke. I have not found any sources for it, and find it unlikely that someone would actually want to self-induce priapism.


Unverified Tag Needed?

Why is there a verify tag on the top of this page? I was looking for sections that lacked cited sources and was unable to find any, LaBarge is heavily cited, and I don't see a problem with that. LilDice 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I see Zoz removed it, that answers that question.. LilDice 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the tag when there were virtually no cited sources in the article. It just stayed there while we were having more and more citations. --Zoz (t) 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Scholarship The first page of this entry overemphasizes the importance of LeBarge and the vocabulary of his institute which has (had?) an address in Stanford California. His profile has been high in pop-culture, especially when Omni Magazine was being published, however, aside from his Ph.D. thesis under the brilliant William Dement, he has offered little that was not already available from other sources.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Lucid_dreaming"

Intro

I think the intro needs some work:

  • The 3rd paragraph is a strange mix of weasel words and peacock words, but I wouldn't want to remove the entire paragraph because I think it's important to emphasise that lucid dreams are really different than "normal dreams".
    Some possible solutions: finding an opinion poll which asserts that e.g. "123% of 456 lucid dreamers agreed that LDs are more exciting, colourful, and fantastic than normal dreams.[link]" (e.g. the Lucidity Institute organizes "workshops", so it's possible that such a poll exists), or finding a relevant quote from a notable person/study/etc.

I couldn't fix these problems yet. If you can, please go ahead. --Zoz (t) 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph is so awful now that I read through it I don't see how it's even relevant. LilDice 00:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a fair amount of skepticism about lucid dreaming. See the lucid dreaming entry in the Skeptic's Dictionary[1]: "Some skeptics do not believe that there is such a state as lucid dreaming (Malcolm 1959). Skeptics don't deny that sometimes in our dreams we dream that we are aware that we are dreaming. What they deny is that there is special dream state called the 'lucid state.' The lucid dream is therefore not a gateway to "transcendent consciousness" any more than nightmares are." I think it's important to note in the intro that although there are all these dubious claims (and therefore a fair amount of skepticism), "lucid dreaming as a scientifically verified phenomenon is well-established". So the fourth paragraph is not absolutely useless. But of course, it should be improved. --Zoz (t) 12:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's look at what is in the fourth paragraph. It mostly talks about the lucid dreaming industry, I don't think that is necessary at all, it should be it's own heading later on in the article. I mean, in the article on sex is the sex industry mentioned? You see my point, they are both biological functions, yet I don't see a link to a brothel on the Sex page. Now on to skepticism, I am kind of torn on the whole issue. Most people when they first hear of Lucid Dreaming are skeptical because it flies in the face of everything you've known/been taught about dreaming your whole life. As far as the skeptic's dictionary link, wasn't that discussed and found there wasn't really anything that interesting, it does not offer any scientific skepticism, rather the author's philosphical opinion. LilDice 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I also want to be clear that I'm not against mentioning skepticism/criticism, but I think it's important to note that it is not grounded in scientific fact. Unless someone can cite a study of course. LilDice 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I wasn't aware that the skepdic link has been discussed. Now I agree that the paragraph about the dubious claims and the cottage industry is of very low quality so it's probably better not to include it until we have at least 1 ref or it can be substaintially improved. I've reorganized the fourth paragraph so it's now about the science, and moved the dubious claims here. --Zoz (t) 11:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a substantial cottage industry based around the technique of lucid dreaming, with an array of induction devices (usually based around flickering light arrays) commercially available to allegedly allow induction of lucid dreams. Their proponents also sometimes claim that these devices help achieve a higher level of spiritual consciousness, and associate it with other New Age concepts such as astral travel or dream sharing. Some proponents of the technique claim they can use symbolic methods to research, program, and modify their nervous system itself. Memory management, creative solution generation, accelerated healing, and ecstatic envelopment of one's body are among the various claimed techniques.
I've added a section on induction devices which I hope is NPOV and will take care of replacing the above paragraph. LilDice 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. Now let's deal with the third paragraph. Any ideas on improving it? --Zoz (t) 22:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How about just replacing it with a cited description of what Lucid Dreaming feels like? Perhaps this paper would have some good info http://www.lucidity.com/VOLDE.html LilDice 22:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lucid Dream Intelligence?

Is there evidence to conclude that natural lucid dreamers are somewhat more intelligent than those who can't control their dreams as easily? dogman15 04:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never read that. I hope that's not in the article, or are you just asking? If I had to take a guess, I would say that they just have their brain chemistry naturally different or trained to allow dream control easier than a person with a more standard brain. LilDice 12:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


I have to disagree with the ed, who decided to enfoce WP:EL on forums link. Forums like dreamviews add tons of lesser known unpublished LD techniques that go into much more detail than we do on the article here... I say keep them. LilDice 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was concerned that this article seemed to be becoming a target for linkspam, but if you find the links a valuable resource, that's fine. Wmahan. 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate it and yes, topics like this can be magnents, but dreamviews is a legit forum not selling anything that doesnt require registration to read. LilDice 00:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree on this. A few months ago I created an audio-course on Lucid Dreaming which can be downloaded for free on www.balancingtools.com (under Tools / Everyone). It provides some new techniques which I haven't seen anywhere else. When the link was still on Wikipedia about 500 Wikipedians downloaded this course. Apparently it is a wanted addition to the site. Can the editor please restore the link, such as it was for several weeks? Thank you. Paul Eijkemans 09:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding your own link to Wikipedia is not allowed; please see Wikipedia:External links. I will not object if a neutral editor wants to add the link. Wmahan. 19:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks like 62.194.18.166 (talk · contribs) also added the link to Dream; I've removed it from that page, which is not specific to lucid dreaming. Wmahan. 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting remark. Is that consistent with the fact that the very commercial Lucidity Institute is also listed? The most recent mail I got from them was on a $ 2.500 dollar Lucid Dreaming course on Hawaii. At least the course I created is for free (yes, I do ask for a donation to organize free clinics for the poor in Guatemala if you like the course). So, let's wait for a neutral user to add the link to Wikipedia! Paul Eijkemans 23:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see the WP:EL policy. The lucidity institute has also published tons of valuable scientific research.... LilDice 14:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I am a firm believer in the mentioned policy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a commercial link list. However, as stressed above, some of the links that where provided in this article earlier where a real ad on for me. They go in more dept and give exercises and examples beyond the framework of this entry. I particularly liked the link to the audio course Paul is revering to. Free to download, practical and immediately to use on your mp3 player. Walter Hottinga 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


The ip address on the history page from the Lucid Dreaming Wikipedia entry, 69.153.11.17 is my own. Someone in my family was trying to help me by putting a link to my website on the page. I saw that they had deleted the "NO MORE LINKS" section and put my link in there without me saying to do so. They then showed me what they had done and I immediately removed the changes and corrected the issue. The page now reads as it should.

I have worked very hard to create the site and do not want anyone to think I am link spamming.

Thank you, Jerry A. Greene

Control Waking Up

I cannot find anything on here about controlling what time we wake up and how can we control it. Before this gets deleted could someone link to a page which explains this.

i.e. If I want to wake up at 5.30am can I tell myself the night before I want to and will I?

There is this invention called an alarm clock.... LilDice 15:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice answer, a smart-assed one, but nice just the same. As to the original inquiry, this is possible but it has nothing to do with lucid dreaming, unless you plan on working the dream into the premise that you must physically awaken at such a specified time. The amount of planning and subsequent training, as it were, that you'd need to do in order to achieve this during a lucid dream would be substantial.

A person who awakens at a set time each day (be it morning or night) will be able to allow their body to physically mimic the pattern that they are consciously following. This may not be exact, since there are quite a few factors to consider (excessive fatigue, where the body would place priority on recuperation before it would allow itself to awaken, etc.) but it is possible. I imagine there are quite a sizable (but not a deluge) number of individuals capable of this phenomenon, whether they are aware of it or not. 71.156.83.248 00:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No pain in lucid dreams?

"Face fears: Because pain does not exist in lucid dreaming..."

Is this meant literally? I don't believe it's true. --Ihope127 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, it seems like that is based on an educated assumption. Pain is a reaction felt by the body but perceived initially by the mind. If you believe you are being cut, beaten, set on fire, then you are easily susceptible to believing that such resulting sensations are afflicting you. This seems more applicable during a lucid dream, given that you are aware of the dream and reality, where the mind would potentially pick up on the pain induced and allow you to feel it physically, even if it were not something of a lasting nature. But, this hinges on the belief of the individual. If you are well aware that you can't be hurt by a dream, your mind wouldn't potentially register the resulting pain. 71.156.83.248 00:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I'd like to bring up the possibility of being able to experience sensations that one potentially has never encountered before in their waking life. One such example would be that of someone who has never had sex, to potentially have a lucid dream involving the act. It is highly speculative in regard to whether they would be able to distinguish what such an act would "feel" like, even if they've seen it depicted through images, films, etc. Unless you know firsthand from an awakened reality experience, how could you potentially know what it feels like just by experiencing it through a dream? The same could be said about certain aspects of pain, since unless you've ever been set on fire, you aren't going to know exactly what it feels like. You are only able to draw on what your mind might happen to perceive what it feels like due to what you may have witnessed in reality. 71.156.83.248 00:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely there's an instinct somewhere stating how to have sex. I don't know why this would also provide what it "feels like", but I've seen no evidence against it. --Ihope127 23:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pain is achieved by one of the 5 senses. If you can see while dreaming, then you can also feel. Its just that it is a "less developed sense". It may be developed but it seems it would not be a wise thing to do. Also, while a person is in a lucid dream, he can "play god" whithout knowing it. If a person thinks he can not feel pain, then, he will not. Personally, i have been attacked by 4 lions at a time while being lucid. It didn´t hurt, but it was not a nice experience. Made me nervous anyway.

200.106.36.22 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Tameless

Famous Lucid Dreamers?

I'd like to see a "Famous Lucid Dreamers" section. I've just come from a markup link from a wiki page about Aphex Twin (Richard David James) as it said he was a lucid dreamer. His lucid dreaming is obviously highly significant influence on his musical output. I think it would be a interesting to see a list of famous lucid dreamers, maybe a pattern of professions would emerge. I can think of a few off the top of my head. Would such a section be added to this page or become a separate page?

WP:OR

trauma

i added this it's based on personal experience however, I feel it's warranted..

Recent alteration to one’s body, for example a broken limb resulting in a cast, or a new tattoo, braces, etc.. which may not appear in the dream.

It was really easy for me to become lucid in dreams after I had broken my leg. I'd be running across fields or in a city or anywhere and notice that my leg was not in cast and that would cause to become lucid.

WP:ORLilDice 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This section was moved to it's own article, feel free to improve the general wording of the section in this article though. I just felt the list was getting a bit out of hand. LilDice 21:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Unregistered User 130.182.27.13

I see that you have made a couple of minor alterations to my paragraph about Hutton's Paradox. Unfortunately, I am unable to contact you directly or to leave a message on a user talk page since you are not yet a registered user.

I disagree with your changes, and I'll explain why. While both Hutton's Paradox and Zhuangzi's Dream concern the nature of reality and involve asking oneself "Am I dreaming?" there is a fundamental difference. Hutton's Paradox is derived from two contentions:

  • Asking oneself "Am I dreaming?" in a dream proves that one is since one does not ask oneself that question in waking life.
  • One can ask precisely that question in waking life.

So, asks Hutton, does it not prove one is dreaming? Or is life really a dream? Zhuangzi, on the other hand, once dreamt he was a butterfly, fluttering happily here and there, and on waking didn't know whether he was a man who had dreamt he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was a man. A delightful story, but not technically a paradox. (It is, incidentally, mentioned by Hutton.) Unless you suggest otherwise, I will at sometime revert your edit and add a paragraph about Zhuangzi's Dream.

Jake Rilko 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to say that "asking oneself 'am I dreaming?' doesn't happen in waking life and thus proves it is a dream if the 2nd premise of the so called 'fallacy' says exactly the opposite.Wikidudeman 09:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a very effective technique... I had a dream once, and I stopped a person walking by and asked him, 'Is this a dream?' He replied simply, 'You never really can tell, can you?', smirked, and proceeded to walk away. I didn't truly notice I was dreaming until I woke up.Twerty 01:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hutton's Paradox

Does this article need this section? Really if it belongs anywhere it should be in the Dreaming article, I really do not see what it has to do with Lucid Dreaming, just seems philosophical to me. LilDice 13:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely Hutton's Paradox has a place in this article, as it concerns lucid and near-lucid dreaming!
Jake Rilko 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A preliminary suggestion

For GA status, you'll probably want to convert several of those lists into prose, can't have good prose when there's not prose to be good and all :/. Homestarmy 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hutton's Paradox is not a paradox and is nonsensical.

In the Hutton's Paradox section it says this.."True, asking oneself "Am I dreaming?" would seem to prove that one is, since one does not ask oneself that question in waking life. And yet he had often done precisely that. So what was he to conclude? That it does not prove one is dreaming? Or that life really is a dream?" This is not a paradox in any sense of the word and it also seems to contradict itself. It's 1st premise disagrees with it's 2nd premise.

  • 1st premise is that asking oneself "am I dreaming?" doesn't occur in waking life.
  • 2nd premise is that Hutton had often asked himself the question "Am I dreaming?" in waking life.

So which is it? Either the 1st premise is true or the 2nd one is. Either asking oneself "am I dreaming?" in waking life doesn't happen and would never occur to be asked or it does happen. Clearly it's easy to ask oneself "Am I dreaming?" and people often do just that when incredible or horrific things happen. It also asks what he should conclude "That it does not prove one is dreaming? Or that life really is a dream?" The obvious answer would be that it doesn't prove one is dreaming. If one is able to ask the question "am I dreaming?" in waking life then it does not prove one is dreaming. The most we can say about this question of "Am I dreaming?" is that it can be both asked in and out of dreams. So the fact of the matter is that the "Huttons paradox" doesn't belong in this article because it doesn't make any sense nor is it even a paradox.Wikidudeman 10:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wikidudeman, I don't think you know what a paradox is. According to my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) it is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory ... an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises". It is therefore the height of nonsense to complain that Hutton's Paradox "seems to contradict itself", that "[i]t's [sic] 1st premise disagrees with it's [sic] 2nd premise", and to conclude that it "is not a paradox". Indeed, one could apply your reasoning to any paradox under the sun and conclude that it "is not a paradox"! As for the premises themselves, I would contend that asking oneself "Am I dreaming? Is this the house I live in? Do I really have that picture on my wall, that book on my shelves?" in a dream does indeed prove that one is dreaming, even though one can certainly ask these questions in waking life. And therein lies the paradox.
Jake Rilko 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
My main problem is that it's just not that notable, it's confusing, it's a side note, it adds little to the article. LilDice 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Jake, There are many definitions to the word "paradox" and in the context of philosophy the definition as wikipedia itself states is "A paradox (Gk: παράδοξος, "aside belief") is an apparently true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition." The so called paradox in the article does not fit this definition in it's statements aren't apparently true. They are false as I stated. Moreover, NO! Asking oneself "Am I dreaming?" does NOT prove you are dreaming. In no way does it prove you are dreaming. If such a question can be asked in waking life it clearly does not prove one is dreaming. And I also agree with LilDice, The paragraph adds nothing to this article. Wikidudeman 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems little point in continuing this discussion, as I am sure neither of us is going to agree with the other. I'll say this, however: asking oneself "Am I dreaming?" in a dream does in my experience prove that one is. And since one can ask oneself the same question in waking life, there is clearly something paradoxical about this. But I have a feeling you will disagree.
The definition you quote is essentially the same as the one I quoted!
Jake Rilko 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Jake, please respect the other editors here. We appreciate the effort, but really the section just doesn't add anything to the article. The paradox itself isn't even well-known, do a google search you only get 34 results. LilDice 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


If you can ask yourself "Am I dreaming" in waking life then asking that doens't prove you're dreaming. This is basically the no scots man fallacy or something of the like.Wikidudeman 14:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

A quick scan of this article shows that there are several "citation needed" tags present. These statements must be sourced before the article can meet the Good Article criteria. Rather than fail the article, I am placing it on hold, which will allow up to seven days for this improvement to be made. I will review the article at that time (or sooner, if a message is left here or on my talk page indicating that the work is complete). Shimeru 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the citations as asked, thanks. LilDice 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. After going over the article, I find that it's reasonably well-written and broad. Its images are appropriately tagged. I'm still a little concerned by statements that are unreferenced or appear to express a POV, though. Namely, the third paragraph of the lead, the sentence "Many people report having experienced a lucid dream during their lives, often in childhood.", and the sentence "Though occurrences like these may seem out of place in waking life, they may seem perfectly normal to a dreaming mind and learning to pick up on these dream signs will help in recognizing that one is dreaming." The subsection on "false awakenings" and the bit about "dream signs" are also unreferenced. Do you think you could find citations for these? Shimeru 21:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I don't think I'll have a problem. I'll also do another POV scan, this article can get messy sometimes, as lots of people have their own theories. I'll let you know after I do another cleanup round. LilDice 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from to-do list

I moved this discussion from the to-do list, I am not the author:

The first page of this entry overemphasizes the importance and of LeBarge and the vocabulary of his institute which has (had?) an address in Stanford California. His profile has been high in pop-culture, especially when Omni Magazine was being published, however, aside from his Ph.D. thesis under the brilliant William Dement, he has offered little that was not already available from other sources.

Wasn't he the first to demonstrate the existence of LD with scientific evidence, reflected from the predetermined eye movements of his subjects during REM sleep? I understand there is some constroversy whether or not another experimenter did it first. For this reason, though, isn't he called "the father of the lucid dreaming?" I would appreciate if you elaborated on your statement, and I'm sure it would be a great benefit to Wikipedia if you contributed! --Slac 18:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [RESPONSE] Yes, with three others he was one of the first to verify lucid dreaming with a combination of laboratory and interview methods: LaBerge, Nagel, L., Dement, W., & Zarcone Jr, V. (1981). Lucid dreaming verified by volitional communication during rem sleep. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 727-732. Groundbreaking work was done by: Berger, Hans (1930). About the Human Electroencephalogram. _Journal of Psychological Neurology_ 40:160-79. See also: Dement and Kleitman, Nathaniel (1957) The Relation of Eye Movements during Sleep to Dream Activity. _Journal of Experimental Psychology_ 53:339-46. I still believe that he clearly did not "invent" lucid dreaming and that this article is in need of including a balanced history of lucid dreaming as a concept and a popular term. How can he fairly be the "father" if Tibetan dream yoga has been continuously practiced for 100's of years and Frederik Willems Van Eeden published the term "lucid dreaming" with over 300 examples in 1913? [END OF RESPONSE]

Awareness during sleep was known to many cultures since it occurs spontaneously to many children. The Tibetans, for example, have writings about it in their Book of the Dead. Celia Green, author of the 1968, Lucid Dreams, should be credited with popularizing the term. The correct spelling of his name is LaBerge and the lucidity institute's current web site does not give an address. He offers 9.5-day seminars in Hawaii for $2,400. Overall, now he seems more like a typical new-age author/lecturer/retreater. LaBerge should be credited for his experiment as a student in which eye-moments were used by a sleeper to signal others while the sleeper continued to sleep. One of his advisors at that time was William Dement, M.D., Ph.D., who has had an impressive career as a professor at Stanford and author of many books on sleep and dreaming. Dement is a pioneer in sleep research and medicine and current Chairman of the National Commission on Sleep Disorders Research. 01:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Good Article

I've determined that this article meets the criteria for a Good Article. Congratulations, and thanks for the hard work. In continuing to improve this article, I would focus primarily on further expanding the history and science sections and on sharpening the prose further. Shimeru 08:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What do people do in lucid dreams?

This is not addressed in the article, so I was wondering, what are the things people usually set out to do (in their dreams) once they realized they were dreaming (achieved lucidity)? especially for the people who intentionally achieve it regularly.

Also, can / do people ever use lucid dreams to obtain sexual pleasure, when they cannot obtain it in waking life? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.215.155.151 (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC).


Totally depends on the person and their subconscious makeup.Wikidudeman 14:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
People typically achieve their hidden desires while lucid dreaming. Lucid dreaming may be long or short depending the person. Most commonly in lucid dreams people fly around, use supernatural abilities like Telekinesis, or create any situation or scenario there of. It gives the Lucid Dreamer a chance to do whatever he or she may want to do whether it is going to a celebrity party or becoming superman. It can be anything.--Unsigned

LOCK THIS PAGE so that only registered users can edit it

Sure, it may not be a high target for vandalism, but vandalism of this article could hurt people. Lucid dreaming is something anyone can ATTEMPT after reading this article, and if someone added some vandalized false information, then people might attempt to use the false information if this was their first time reading the article. It's not that hard to sign up for wikipedia, so the anonymous people have nothing to bitch about. 206.172.136.70 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't offer medical information so I don't see how it could hurt anyone. I don't see a reason for it to be protected.Wikidudeman 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
People could put false information on the page, let's go with an extreme example "If you die in a lucid dream your body will go into shock and you will die from a heart attack". If someone put that there, someone might read it and think it's true, and decide to not try lucid dreaming... or someone might die in a lucid dream, and it might scare the shit out of them because they think they will actually die.
Um that doesn't justify a pre-emptive sprotect. Don't worry we'll keep an eye on it. LilDice 18:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think that this should be locked to editing only available for registered users. You never know what sick pranksters out there will put on a website for laughs. This could be serious if say... someone says that a certain pill will help with lucid dreaming. All we would need then is an eager lucid dreamer and then all the sudden we have a person who's abusing pills. And besides, it's very annoying... Just a suggestion :) --EdwardCullen II 00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Naturals"

There are some factors which can affect the ability to experience lucid dreams:

  • Some naturals have lucid dreams more often and more easily than others.

Doesn't the fact that some people have lucid dreams more often and easily than others automatically follow from the fact that there are some factors influencing this ability? If so, then we don't need the above bulleted sentence.Exabyte (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, also the whole 'naturals' term is really just slang, I haven't seen it used in an official publication, just thrown around on message boards. LilDice 19:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't exactly helpful, popular, or even good looking. Why is it there?


Supplements

(copied from my talk page) LilDice 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion that I should have added real sources. My contribution was intended to provide info on a very popular induction device that is not currently discussed. This would be similar to the other induction devices currently discussed - Nova Dreamer and Lucille. I'm new to adding information to Wikipedia, although I've been using for a couple years. I'm working on several additions to my previous change which will hopefully provide the needed sources and verifiablity. Should I post the new version of my changes directly to the page (in the same way I did previously) or should I first send you the new version of my changes so you can confirm that are now acceptable (and if not possibly give me a couple suggestions on what else I can do to improve)? Bengler 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's just have everyone discuss here first. I just want to make sure we're not willy-nilly adding drugs listed to the page, especially ones where there have been no real studies, what are some other's thoughts on this? LilDice 00:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Acronyms

I propose that most of the neologisms, especially those coined by LaBerge. They may be the most "popular" terminology in Lucid dreaming circles, and around the Lucidity Institute, but to an outsider, they just make this whole thing sound much more like a cult than anything else. Considering the WBTB method isn't anything more than just "waking yourself up in the middle of the night, hoping to interrupt a dream", I don't see the reason to put a label to this; it just makes everything "lucid" so much more techy and complex sounding. It is of course important to mention that LaBerge calls it that, and that many dreamers follow the terminology used in his books (you could also mention that a lot of the dreamers are under 15 years old, if you had a source that proves it), but LaBerge does not represent 100% of the scientific community on all things lucidian, and Wikipedians shouldn't be taking his words for fact, standard, or final word.

The descriptions of lucid methos are also incredibly bloated, and the WBTB method claims that MILD is necessary, which is simply wrong, as WILD, FILD, or whateveryourmomputsinfrontofanILD can just as easily "combined", and there is no necessity to combine anything at all, especially if you're just trying to assure you remember your dream, lucid or not.

I also believe that the reference to Don Juan should be removed, as he is not a scientist, has written no scientific journals, and his writings are confidential even outside the scientific community. Daniel Love also shouldn't be in here; an unsourced 2 line article that is self-referential to the text mentioned in this article.

I don't know what to say, I just can't believe the article has been left in this state. I guess people are unwilling to criticize because it's such a mysterious phenomenon. Let's keep this Wikipedian. 222.158.162.91 12:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree on some things, and disagree on others. We've got a few issues.
First weighted LaBerge Research: I see where you're coming from, however these are the popular terms and for these we can only go off LaBerge's research and link to it. I spent last week searching for all the lucid dreaming research I could find on various journals and indexes, there is few and far between right now unfortunately. That means for now the article will be skewed towards LaBerge's research, this is fine since we are citing him and it's the only research available for many types. Our article accurately reflects the current state of LD research.
Next, acronyms: There is research for each of the acronyms listed, if there is no research be it LaBerge or otherwise then we should probably remove it, I think it's fine to have the acronyms myself and doesn't sound 'cultish', if you can think of a better way to organize let us know on the talk page.
Don Juan: I think that should be removed also, as well ad Daniel Love. I firmly agree we need to keep this article grounded with research, not links to message boards and fictional accounts. I'm going to remove these two things.
LilDice 14:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
WTBT: "waking yourself up in the middle of the night, hoping to interrupt a dream" -- This is a misunderstanding. WBTB is not done to interrupt a dream, WBTB is done to increase the probability of a lucid dreams (verified by research, consistent with my experience). Also I don't see what is problem with using acronyms -- they make communication efficient and they are used in every field.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.77.161.17 (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
You hope to interrupt a dream so that you're primed to re-enter REM when you go back to sleep. LilDice 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

AP is often believed to be a kind of lucid dream by skeptics.Puddytang 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah, but the question is should the Lucid Dream article be associated with pseudoscience like AP... LilDice 02:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pinching oneself

Pinching oneself or hitting an object hard. The acute pain usually cannot be felt in dreams.

Do we have any scientific reference for that apart from the popular culture references? I mean, I once tried pinching myself in a lucid dream and it seemed to be real. After I woke up, I realized that it did not involve real pain, but within the dream's universe, it did, so I logically concluded I wasn't dreaming. :-) bogdan 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any references, I'm find with removing it. LilDice 17:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WILD is not a separate type

To the anon user who insists, think about it, once you are Lucid there is no difference between a WILD and a DILD, therefore a WILD is an induction technique, not a separate type of lucid dream. LilDice 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

HOWTO tag

Removing the howto tag, the article is clearly not a classic how-to article, but rather is fully sourced explanation on the scientifically tested processes used to trigger the phenomenon. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 11:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Instructions and advice are not appropriate for an article. Saying a technique is 'ideal' is advice and fails NPOV. Same goes for "The key to being successful..." and other similar phrasing. Advice needs to be attributed to the party making it, and techniques, if they're based on scientific tests, should be phrased in the terms of the tests, not advice for someone seeking to duplicate them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucid_dream/Archive_2&oldid=1252124885"