Lucid Dreaming

[Z]

There have been some fairly well conducted experiments involving lucid dreamers, specifically where certain acts (twitch of a finger, or moving the eyes one way or another) are performed upon prior agreement when lucidity is achieved. However, I don't have links to any of them at the moment.

I also know some attempt has been made to debunk this research, claiming that the acts are unconscious acts, remembered and performed without lucidity. Who knows?

I personally am capable of lucid dreaming pretty much at will, but the moment I focus on my actual body, I usually wake up... so I don't know how this research was accomplished.

 

[BillyJoe]

Perhaps the terminology has not been agreed on, but we still seem to be mixing up vivid and lucid dreaming. Red seems to have drifted from one to the other meaning within the very same post, apparently without realizing it.



As for the difficulty with reading during dreams. Surely that is because it is so much easier and quicker to think up a story than to simultaneously "write" and read it. The words of the story have to come out of your head and onto the pages of the book at the same time as you are concentrating on reading those very same words. Seems to me an almost impossible feat!



BillyJoe

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sorry to bump this thread, but I find lucid dreaming quite fascinating

What I find amusing, is that nobody has questioned the evidence for it. We have one isolated scientist (Laberge) and his word, and a bunch of anecdotal experiences.
Is that it? Why is everyone accepting it so readily?

Maybe because nobody is making bold claims regarding their supernatural status?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I also know some attempt has been made to debunk this research, claiming that the acts are unconscious acts, remembered and performed without lucidity. Who knows?

Anything can be argued for those who are uncapable of having them. I couldnt care less.

I personally am capable of lucid dreaming pretty much at will

Have you ever wondered, perhaps noticing the detail of some object within the dream, about its "objectivity"? (no, no beyond the dreamland, just in there).

 

[Z]

Have you ever wondered, perhaps noticing the detail of some object within the dream, about its "objectivity"? (no, no beyond the dreamland, just in there).

Not sure I follow your question here... you mean, do I ponder the seeming reality of things within the dream?

No, never, really. What I do find mind-boggling at times is the ability to see all sided of an object within the dream simultaneously. Not something we normally do in real life, but something fairly easy to achieve once I've entered lucid dreams.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Not sure I follow your question here... you mean, do I ponder the seeming reality of things within the dream?

Yep, and talking with a dream character asking "him" questions about reality, etc. It is an educating experiment.

What I do find mind-boggling at times is the ability to see all sided of an object within the dream simultaneously. Not something we normally do in real life, but something fairly easy to achieve once I've entered lucid dreams.

Interesting, I need to try that. You mean something like The Matrix but all at the same time, in the same perception so to speak?

 

[Kaylee]

Sorry to bump this thread, but I find lucid dreaming quite fascinating

What I find amusing, is that nobody has questioned the evidence for it. We have one isolated scientist (Laberge) and his word, and a bunch of anecdotal experiences.
Is that it? Why is everyone accepting it so readily?

Hi Placebo as you know, I'm a fan of lucid dreaming also .

I'm not sure how many people accept lucid dreaming (LD), but I do agree that there are not a lot of people taking the time and energy to argue against it, at least in this forum.

My guess is that it's because a significant percentage of people do have LD (as shown by the posters on this thread), and that also because most non-lucid dreamers don't see it as threatening in any way, or something to be jealous about.

* There are no scams (that I know of) based on LD abilities.
* LD doesn't threaten anyone's sense of privacy (compared to a science fiction version of uber telepathic skills at will with 100% accuracy and the detail level of a newspaper article)
* It's not a skill that inspires any unease. Did you see this
? Scattered within the thread some of the posters said they might be concerned if psi proved to be true as they didn't have any of the abilities. Also within that thread, here's an interesting <a href=http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870807193#post1870807193> post . I realize that these posters were responding tongue in cheek, but still, I don't think anyone would have a similar reaction to not being able to lucid dream.
* I don't think I've heard of any lucid dreamers that tried to pass themselves off as special or god-like creatures. However, I've seen an old video of Uri Geller where he tries to do precisely that (in a non-chalent way). (It’s a video where it's either his first or an earlier appearance on a British Talk show.) My guess is that he was not the only one in the history of parapsychology to try to do that.

ETA some grammar corrections

 

[Z]

Yep, and talking with a dream character asking "him" questions about reality, etc. It is an educating experiment.

I'm afraid that, the instant lucidity is achieved, my 'dream characters' become puppets. I can ask them questions, but I hear the answers I expect to hear. The only time that hasn't been true was the first time I encountered another dreamwalker. I asked a question, and she replied, "Why don't you ask yourself that?" and then vanished.

Interesting, I need to try that. You mean something like The Matrix but all at the same time, in the same perception so to speak?

Exactly. In a singular perception, to see all surfaces/sides of an object. And in absolute detail - none of the fuzziness of my vision, none of the haze of inches of atmosphere, but absolute sensation of detail. Which may well be why some claim their dreams seem more real than reality itself.

 

[Kaylee]

Qualia in Lucid Dreams

Heh. Just like to thank the folks that mentioned reading in lucid dreams. I read this thread for the first time a couple of weeks ago. I never had a lucid dream that involved reading before, but shortly after reading this thread I had two. Guess my subconscious got some ideas.

Oh, but it was just light reading. One dream involved looking up something in what would have normally have been the index section in a book, but in the dream the print was in big letters and outline form. The second dream involved people using words written on flash cards every once in a while. Did I mention that my dreams are frequently… unusual?

Each time I thought, well, what do you know, I'm reading in my dream just like that thread talked about … Then I just continued with the dream. It was a strange experience, so thanks for bringing it up.

One other thing. My dreams, both regular and lucid are very vivid, they have a real life quality to them. But when I try to do internal visual meditations -- my attempt compared to my dreams are very inferior by comparison. I do find this both frustrating and perplexing. Anyone else experience this? Any theories as to why this happens, or rather doesn't happen as successfully?

 

[Red Siegfried]

Perhaps the terminology has not been agreed on, but we still seem to be mixing up vivid and lucid dreaming. Red seems to have drifted from one to the other meaning within the very same post, apparently without realizing it.



As for the difficulty with reading during dreams. Surely that is because it is so much easier and quicker to think up a story than to simultaneously "write" and read it. The words of the story have to come out of your head and onto the pages of the book at the same time as you are concentrating on reading those very same words. Seems to me an almost impossible feat!



BillyJoe

Yes, I did talk about vivid dreams and lucid dreams. They are two seperate things. Lucid dreams are when you realize you are dreaming. Also note that lucid dreaming does not necessarily mean you are in control of the dream. The episode I spoke of when I thought I was passing out and waking up in bed was a vivid dream, not lucid. I didn't understand I was dreaming at the time.

 

[BillyJoe]

And now zaayrdragon has done the same.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

The thing about Lucid dreaming is to not quite know that you are lucid dreaming, a bit like arthur in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy trying to fly, the only way he could fly is if he forgot he was actually doing it. He had to get distracted.
The best dreams are when you are only partialy aware and then you don't have to control every thing.

thats my advice from the dreams I used to have

 

[Placebo]

From Bodhi Dharma Zen
Maybe because nobody is making bold claims regarding their supernatural status?

Do you mean to say that skeptical thought only extends as far as the supernatural?
The point is that there are some that claim it as fact without having solid evidence, and others that have no reason to believe it.

Regarding the research done, I know only of Laberge's attempts.

I hear what Shera is saying, but that's tantamount to 'it doesn't bother me, so I'm not going to determine the truth of it'
Once again, does critical thinking only extend as far as the supernatural?
Blind gambling isn't supernatural, but wouldn't you think it's a danger to those gullible enough not to question it - critically?
(NOTE, I'm not referring to those who gamble in the knowledge of the odds and/or for entertainment/challenge)

Anyway, I was just trying to prove a point here.
The truth is that I'm an avid lucid dreamer myself. I'm also what they call a 'natural', but very minimally.

About the reading, with some effort, I can read pretty well in my lucid dreams. It is quite a strain though
BTW, I even wrote a poem in a lucid dream. It was pretty silly

 

[rppa]

Sorry to bump this thread, but I find lucid dreaming quite fascinating

What I find amusing, is that nobody has questioned the evidence for it. We have one isolated scientist (Laberge) and his word, and a bunch of anecdotal experiences.
Is that it? Why is everyone accepting it so readily?

Perhaps because so many of us have personal memories of being aware that we were dreaming.

It's a little easier to accept "anecdotal" evidence when it's your own anecdote.

In fact, I don't understand why there is even any doubt or big deal made about lucid dreaming. Sometimes you are lucid, sometimes you aren't. Why did this ever achieve woo-woo status?

 

[rppa]

Do you mean to say that skeptical thought only extends as far as the supernatural?

How about "skeptical thought about human abilities only extends to capabilities that there's some reason to think are hard to do".

I wouldn't doubt somebody who claimed to be able to juggle.

The point is that there are some that claim it as fact without having solid evidence, and others that have no reason to believe it.

If I tell you I dreamed about my dead father last night, I can provide you no solid evidence. I can't even imagine what solid evidence would look like. You have no particular reason to believe my claim.

I hear what Shera is saying, but that's tantamount to 'it doesn't bother me, so I'm not going to determine the truth of it'. Once again, does critical thinking only extend as far as the supernatural?

If somebody takes my word about my dream, is that tantamount to saying "it doesn't bother me, so I'm not going to determine the truth of it."

If you want someone to extend critical thinking to this claim, what would that look like? Lay out for me please your ideal critical thinker's reaction to people's descriptions of their dreams.

 

[BillyJoe]

About the reading, with some effort, I can read pretty well in my lucid dreams. It is quite a strain though

Do you mean it's an effort to respond to the question of reading whilst in a lucid dream, or do you mean it's a strain to read in a lucid dream?

But seriously, I would need some real hard evidence before accepting that statement as true. But perhaps your "pretty well" is relative, and since the rest of us are hardly able to read at all in our lucid dreams, it's possibly not saying much. Perhaps you could qualify a little. What do you mean by "pretty well"?

BJ

 

[Kaylee]

I hear what Shera is saying, but that's tantamount to 'it doesn't bother me, so I'm not going to determine the truth of it'

Hmmm, change that summary to:

"the belief in lucid dreaming is probably not harmful and I've got bigger fish to fry, so I'm not going to take the time and energy to argue about the truth of lucid dreaming"

Add:

"Some longstanding skeptical members of the JREF have also said they have experienced lucid dreaming and I trust their critical thinking skills."

Then I'll agree that you summarized my theory as to why lucid dreaming has not been challenged in this thread.

And for the record and for the folks who have not read my earlier posts, I'm also a lucid dreamer. And while it’s a personal experience that has not been lab tested, I've no doubts about it.
Like rppa said:

It's a little easier to accept "anecdotal" evidence when it's your own anecdote.

Once again, does critical thinking only extend as far as the supernatural?

In this forum I think critical thinking is extended to any beliefs or behaviors proven to be harmful or likely to be harmful. Beliefs challenged in this forum have included homeopathic medicine, not vaccinating children, and putting a medium on one's own personal payroll. Hmmm, critical thinking has also been extended to any new scientific theory or idea. But check out <a href=http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53875> this thread </a> to see (non-harmful) occasions where skeptical members have decided to give critical thinking a rest.

For the record I agree, despite my not agreeing with most members of this forum about psi.

But of course I'm new to the forum (and I believe in psi) so I could be wrong in my theory as to why lucid dreaming hasn't been challenged in this thread.

[/B] BTW, I even wrote a poem in a lucid dream. It was pretty silly [/B]

Awesome. I can't even do that when I'm wide-awake.

 

[Z]

And now zaayrdragon has done the same.

I have done what the same, BJ?

 

[Z]

Re: Qualia in Lucid Dreams

Originally posted by Shera One other thing. My dreams, both regular and lucid are very vivid, they have a real life quality to them. But when I try to do internal visual meditations -- my attempt compared to my dreams are very inferior by comparison. I do find this both frustrating and perplexing. Anyone else experience this? Any theories as to why this happens, or rather doesn't happen as successfully?

Remember that the iconography stored within the brain is more precise than what we normally detect day-to-day. Within the brain, there seems to be some mechanism that acts like a volume control slider for sleep and unconsciousness, that turns down input from our senses. The 'background sounds' in our brain - the endless processing of thought and memory that is always there - seems more vivid and real when you are sleeping - when the sense input sliders are near zero - than when you are awake. So visualizations when awake are never nearly as successful as when you are asleep, because you are tuned to your senses - and your random internal thoughts - dreams - visualizations are played against your mind at such lower clarity and volume so as not to interfere with daily performance.

Can you imagine the survival problems if man could not discern between a real predator, and his imagined predator? This is certainly a contributing factor to our sensory processing getting greater priority than our internal thought/visualizations/etc. On the other hand, it seems a mystery to me why, during rest, the senses should be tuned down so much. That would be interesting to research.

 

[Kaylee]

Re: Qualia in Lucid Dreams

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
…Within the brain, there seems to be some mechanism that acts like a volume control slider for sleep and unconsciousness, that turns down input from our senses. The 'background sounds' in our brain - the endless processing of thought and memory that is always there - seems more vivid and real when you are sleeping - when the sense input sliders are near zero - than when you are awake. So visualizations when awake are never nearly as successful as when you are asleep, because you are tuned to your senses - and your random internal thoughts - dreams - visualizations are played against your mind at such lower clarity and volume so as not to interfere with daily performance.

Can you imagine the survival problems if man could not discern between a real predator, and his imagined predator? This is certainly a contributing factor to our sensory processing getting greater priority than our internal thought/visualizations/etc

That's a great theory! Thanks!

On the other hand, it seems a mystery to me why, during rest, the senses should be tuned down so much. That would be interesting to research.

I agree that would be an interesting area to research. I think though that the amount and selectivity of the sensory information tuned down varies by people and circumstances. For example -- some people are "heavy sleepers" yet others are "light sleepers". Also I've known some new parents who were worried that they wouldn't hear their newborns cry at night because they were heavy sleepers. While they continued to be able to sleep through loud traffic noises, lawnmowers, loud dog barkings and etc., they were surprised that they woke up at the softest cries from their babies.

Another thought is that I suspect most people need a little help to make sure that they get the amount of sleep they need. How many of us know people who just prefer to stay up? I know quite a few people who claim to get only 3 or so hours a night sleep, which is much less than the 8 hours most adults are suppose to need on average. And back in the days when survival was more of an issue, I bet most adults if they had a choice would have preferred to stay up so they could have reduced the risk for becoming a predator's snack. So exhaustion, interesting dreams, tuned down external senses at night probably all helped increase the chances of getting a good night's sleep.