Talk:Lucid dream

Passage of time

The article states "The amount of time that passes in lucid dreaming has been shown to be about the same as while waking." That sounds a whole lot like it means "you spend as much time in the awake state as you do in lucid dreaming," which I sure wish were true! How about something like "the subjective passing of time while in a lucid dream is relatively accurate (i.e., reflects actual time passage)."? 67.170.85.96 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Change made. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 12:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Commonness of Lucid Dreaming

Why is this level of consciousness not common to man under normal circumstances? Why is it that most people simply close their eyes just to awake 8 hours later without having the slightest notion of what could've happened in the meantime? 85.179.31.94 13:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And can you read? What part of "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucid dream article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." was difficult to understand? Try e.g. DreamViews for a lucidity messageboard. Sourcejedi 13:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps editor 85.179.31.94 was trying to suggest that such should be included in the article (though, perhaps it is.. I haven't read the entire article). Also keep in mind WP:BITE and WP:FAITH. Morphh ^(talk) 13:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thx, sorry for biting. 1) dream recall is hard, which we do have a section on. 2) the effect of dreaming on the way we think, e.g. critical faculties (look, what a nice purple elephant) and memory (our memory doesn't point out events which go against our real life memory, or which are inconsistent with what happened 5 minutes ago). I tried to get the latter into the introduction a few days ago but it was taken straight out again :-(. Sourcejedi 13:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Achievement Method Edits

I'm going through the "Achievement Methods" section, fixing it up, adding/taking away some things. Feel free to yell at me...

About Occult Project box

I can't seem to find who put the WPOccult box. And I think that this article shouldn't have it. As it's metioned in some of the talk archived, this article has a lot explored cientific bases and can barely be described as an occult related article. So if in a few days I will take down the box, if no one opposes. --Legion fi 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I say do it.TheRingess (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ERASED--Legion fi 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific History

"Philosopher Norman Malcolm's 1959 text Dreaming argued against the possibility of checking the accuracy of dream reports in this way, but this experiment proved that actions agreed upon during waking life could be recalled and performed once lucid in a dream". I don't really see the point of this sentence. _How_ did Malcolm argue against it? Did he simply assume that such experiments would not produce a positive result, or did he argue against their validity? How specific was he - did he argue against the use of eye signals, or did he just say that signalling to the outside world was impossible while asleep? - Sourcejedi

I've dropped the "in this way" for now. - Sourcejedi

Introduction

I can't find any mention of the ability to consciously control the dream while lucid e.g. fly, summon objects/people, perform telekinesis, transform objects, teleport into a different dream scene... even under the "spinning" technique under the section on prolonging lucidity, which is associated with teleportation. Which seems a fairly major ommision. I'm looking at the introduction and I thought that it would be worth mentioning it right at the start. - Alan

Done (mentioned in intro). I have to say I think this is a really challenging article to do an introduction for. I'd love to see some discussion about it. I thought it was also worth attempting to describe the lack of self-awareness in "normal dreams", as I think it explains why a) we aren't lucid when we start dreaming (we've imagined ourself into a dream world and forgotten about anything else) and b) why its so unusual to become lucid in a dream (because our critical facilities are inhibited, and because we don't try to remember the real world, or indeed what happened 5 minutes ago, so we don't see any contradictions). But this means I took out someone elses paragraph which described DILD vs WILD in a nice nontechnical way, to prevent the intro growing too long. Maybe the DILD bit could be fitted in somehow, but I'd have said a short introduction could do without an explicit description of WILD on the basis that it's an "advanced" technique, and is likely to sound slightly daunting or unlikely to a new reader. - Sourcejedi

Thanks fellow anonymites for spotting and correcting my grammar errors! - [User:Sourcejedi|Sourcejedi]]

• Intro further updated, more information added. — John Stattic (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[Indentation reset]. Arrgh. Looks like I got me some discussion. I'm not very happy with the introduction as it stands now and I'd revert it immediately if I hadn't just rewritten it myself.

I already said that I felt it was useful to try and contrast Lucid Dreams with non-lucid dreams, that its not appropriate to explain DILD versus WILD in the introduction, and that the introduction should if possible avoid using technical terms such as DILD and WILD, particularly given the length and redundancy involved in expanding both acronyms. I would appreciate it if, since you chose to reverse my recent decisions, you could outline your own reasoning.

I would make the following suggestions:

• Theres an additional reference to define WILD and DILD, which I suspect could be replaced by existing ones. Maybe the Lucidity Institute FAQ? Just to try and keep the references section from getting out of hand. Also I love DreamViews but I'm not sure whether its the best site to link to, and those links are hosted on a forum (possibly subject to change by authors, forum upgrades, and by linking direct to the thread we might miss a new tutorial which replaces the old one but is in a new thread on the forum).
• "logically concludes that they are indeed dreaming" could be improved. "works out" is equivalent and less opaque ("indeed" might have to be changed to "in fact" in that case).
• Try to avoid linkifying words for no particular reason - i.e. physically impossible and normal dream when dream has already been linkified (and the article on Dreams is supposed to be about dreams in general, not specific to normal - that is, non-lucid - dreams).

I also don't see why the article was renamed the article from "Lucid Dreaming" to "Lucid Dream" (with the consequent effect on the introduction). I can't say my objection is anything but trivial, due in part to the inertia I feel from having phrased the previous introduction that way, and unlikely to meet majority agreement, but inertia and annoyance are strong forces in my mind so I'll write this down and find out if anyone else thinks the same :-). Using the Noun subtly suggests that a dream is either lucid for its entire duration or not, whereas it is possible to gain and lose lucidity part way through. I grant that people once familiar with the subject would quite naturally refer to any dream involving lucidity as a lucid dream, but my feeling is that for a newcomer the Verb form permits a more precise / simpler / easier to understand definition. WP:NAME a) doesn't say that Nouns are preferred over Verbs (only that if a Noun is chosen it should be singular) b) says "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain". This article was created with the name "Lucid Dreaming" at 15:49, 16 October 2001, and no reason was given (check the history on WP:RM) to rename it.

• Disagree with reverting current intro.—seems easily readable to me. 142.176.115.196 04:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thx for input. Since there've been lots of changes to the intro now, heres a link to the version I wrote and was proposing reverting to. Sourcejedi

Allan Hobson

Hobson's article says he doesn't try to explain Lucid Dreaming. Be nice if we could reconcile it with this one saying he's hypothesized about it - even if both are strictly speaking true (he's made guesses to some reporter but isn't really concerned about it) this is jarring and could do with some explanation.

The section I'm referring to is fairly prominent - straight after the first section, "scientific history", and its frustrating that it reads almost like original research and I can't verify it - or just find out more as a reader - because the paper referenced is not available online. BTW I believe LaBerge is critical of Hobsons approach e.g. H claims that volition is generally absent in dreams; LB cites a study that says it was reduced but only by something like a 3rd (whatever that means) [1]. Sourcejedi 11:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I was searching the english wikipedia article about Lucid Dreaming to enhance the french one when I saw this reference to Hobson's work. I was extremely surprised cause Hobson's Activation Synthesis model doesn't describe at all how Lucid Dreaming is possible. Thus I think this assumption is dubious and at least, a reference would be needed. (I'm not a specialist in sleep nor neurobiology though.) - Basilus, user from the french Wiki 21:41, 18 June 2007

I'm not sure what the issue you guys are having. I'm the one who added all the info about Hobson. I read one of his books, so I looked up the papers to cite it. With regards to LaBerge arguing against Hobson's research, I'll take Hobsons most of the time. But anyway, can you be more clear on the issues you're having? the AS model does describe how LD'n is possible, Hobson draws diagrams that show at what point LD'n occurs in the AS model in his books. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thx. My issue is simply that Hobsons hypothesis here contradicts the statement in his own article that he doesn't explain them at all. Sourcejedi 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That LaBerge article is old, and seems to just be cherry picking some older Hobson articles. In his latest books (and research) Hobson has come around to lucid dreaming, in fact there is a whole chapter where he describes lucid dreaming in his book The Dream Drugstore [2] as well as writing the forward for a recent book about Lucid Dreaming" The Conscious Exploration of Dreaming: Discovering How We Create and Control Our Dreams". When I get a chance I'll post the abstract from that journal article I cited. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 20:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was also refering to the old controversy between LaBerge and Hobson and I wasn't aware Hobson came around LD'ing. Now I've just found recent papers by Hobson about the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Here is an excerpt that can be found on the web indeed : "But another cortical region, the dorsolateral prefrontal region, is conspicuously less activated than in waking. This specific deactivation may constitute the physical substrate of the cognitive incapacity of non-lucid dreaming." Hobson, J.A., PSYCHE 11 (5), June 2005. Thank you for having pointed this out. --- Basilus, from the french Wiki. 2 August 2007

Checking

One thing I did to check if I was dreaming is killing myself. If I still "live" after commiting suicide, I must be dreaming! To check, just jump from a high building, shoot yourself, ... But I'm not sure I'd recommend this technique to anybody :S

You're right, that's a *very* bad idea.

Here is what I've been doing since I was a child of 5 or so - I could tell time early. Look at a digital clock if one is around. If the number in the 10s minutes is a 6-9 (i.e. 2:71, 4:93) you *must* be dreaming. You can do this with other common objects, too, that look different - just keep saying to yourself that this will clue you in.

Other things I've used - stuffed aniamls with different colored ears or noses, the sun being a different color, books with strange stuff in them (i.e.: A baseball player whose career stretched 100 years), any little thing like that.

It was one of a few ways I could fight nghtmares, and I was very effective at it. I think it's something where you have to keep telling yourself it's going to work. I think it's usually easiest to limit yourself to one thing. And, the clock one was what cued me in and helped me to know when it was adream or not.Somebody or his brother 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

0.o Perhaps a less extreme version of your checking is to pinch yourself. In a dream, there is usually either no pain, or the pain is "false" feeling, as if it comes from somewhere else or is either too intense or barely felt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.218.207 (talk) 00:49, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

What do skeptics have to say about it?

I know of only one skeptical commentary on lucid dreaming: [3]. (Susan Blackmore's piece for Skeptical Inquirer is quoted in the Wikipedia article, but her attitude is somewhat positive.) From a skeptical perspective, the real question raised by lucid dreaming is, what is there to be skeptical about? The entire topic has a certain new age flavor, even though respectable scientists like William Dement have studied or at least commented on the phenomenon. The "advocates" of it seem to believe it is a step toward self-improvement or spiritual awakening. LaBerge himself flirts with, if not outright embraces, parapsychological beliefs. And yet there's nothing about lucid dreaming itself (as opposed to the way it's often used) that should provoke skepticism. The article I cited gets itself in a tangle when it says the following: "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.'" That argument sounds like pure semantics to me. marbeh raglaim 13:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not read any scientific skepticism about Lucid Dreaming, especially since the blinking test have been repeated multiple times, there's really nothing to deny. Unfortunately Lucid Dreaming does get lumped into the New Age type beliefs, but this article isn't about those so we don't really have a problem. As far as just in general usage for self improvement, I think it's just a natural extension of the phenomenon, just like scientists started inventing drugs that stimulate certain neuromodulators once they discovered them; science will come up with ways to use LD'n as therapy as well. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Induction Methods/Reality Testing

I have a suggestion to add for this section. Underwater breathing. I once recall that while I was dreaming, I jumped into a mysterious lake, and swam deep into it, all the while breathing normally, until I stopped and for some reason looked at my hands to then realize I must be dreaming, because I was breathing underwater. So how about something like "Ability to breathe underwater."

0.o uh, it's already there, with plugging your nose...(for frequent lucid dreamers, you really should try this some time...it's really fun.)

GA review

There are quite a few unsourced statements here, could be time for a review.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

26 sources for an article of this length is quite bad. It might be worth moving it to a subpage and taking each and every sentence that doesn't have a source through a table, and deciding if it should have a source or not, or be removed. I've got something like this at User:Lucid/Popesource, incomplete and for a totally separate subject though, and not one designed to have discussion, but just sources found. --lucid 15:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

New Novadreamer?

Why isn't it mentioned? The link posted next to the old one's mention even says there will be a new one. http://www.lucidity.com/novadreamer.html Dude902 16:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT --lucid 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)