Talk:Lucid dream/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Side effects?

The article doesn't comment on how lucid dreaming could affect the quality of sleep in terms of resting, duration and depth, or if it can make one more prone to spontaneously waking up, etc.. If anybody feels competent enough to add something on this topic within a scientific context, I'd like to see it included in the article.Tariuk (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. The article also says that it's difficult to lucid dream with frequency but I can tell you that I have been able to do it at will for years. I have never met anyone else that can lucid dream but I can tell you that it is interuption to sleep. Not in the sense of recooperative but more mental. I am a thinker by nature but I can never seem to turn off my mind including when I sleep. Swartma1 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lois dela Rosa (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC) After reading the article, I am shocked upon realizing that I might be in fact a Lucid Dreamer. I am really good at remembering my dreams and usually I am aware that I am dreaming. There have been many occasions where I would wake up in the middle of my sleep while dreaming and as soon as I fall right back to sleep my dream continues. Then I would dream the same scene in a different place with the same characters few nights later. Most of the times these series of Lucid Dreams that I have, relates to reality pretty strongly; although it's the opposite version. I've been trying to find explanations as to why I often experience this. I thought the same as [Swartma1], I guess a thinker really unable to turn off their brain even when they sleep. I am very keen to know if the research performed with regards to the article returned resulted into a possibility of treating this or perhaps to lessen its occurrence. That is not to say that this is a serious disease but at some point for me it's exhausting to constantly participate in my dreams.

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

A Conflict

From this article:

"Scientists such as Allan Hobson, with his neurophysiological approach to dream research, have helped to push the understanding of lucid dreaming into a less speculative realm."

From Hobson:

"Hobson does not, however, explain how the phenomenon of lucid dreaming, where the dreamer has control of the content, fits into his theories."

So which is it? How can Hobson "push the understanding of lucid dreaming" if lucid dreaming itself does not even fit into his theoretical models? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Freud believed that dreams were the result of a hidden desire or wish. The hidden nature of a dream was a central point of Freud's theory. According to Freud the psyche worked to distort or conceal aspects of the dream. Hobson refuted the notion of wish-fulfillment by saying that 1. Dreams were completely random. 2. There was no intentional distortion of the dream or wish on the part of the psyche. Hobson concluded that a change in physiological "state" caused an inability to recall dreams accurately. He believed dreams were primarily a way for the brain to "regenerate." Thus, he opened the door for other scientists, like Stephen LaBerge, to explore further explanations for lucid dreaming. His theory, that dreams were the result of random synapses firing in the brain, did not incorporate lucid dreaming very well. References - , , (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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)."? 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? 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 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


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. 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


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)

I have been lucid dreaming for a while now and the best way to check whether or not your are dreaming is to plug your nose and try to breath. It is by far the easiest thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:18, 5 December 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 (talk) 00:49, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I believe pinching is an urban legend of some sort like B&W dreams. All physicals sensations in lucid dreams are very accurate as far as I recall. Of course that may well vary by person and even by dream but that's one thing I've never found to be "off". blades 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Blades, pain is often very accurate in dreams. The whole "pinch me, i'm dreaming" thing is bogus. You can feel pain in dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In my dreams (lucid or not) I can feel pain. Some good techniques are checking your hand: count the fingers, see if you can poke through it with your other hand, see if it melts away. When doing reality checks always think to yourself that it is possible that you are dreaming. If you are thinking that it is not possible that you are draming the same thing will happen in your dreams. It has happened to me before and it is frustrating.

In my last DILD, I suddenly thought "Before I get too exited(about something unremembered), I should check if I'm dreaming.". I then tugged my eyelids upwards slightly and concluded that they were closed and that I was dreaming. How common is it to be able to tug ones eyelids upwards and conclude that they are closed?-- (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Last night I opened a short log file in my text editor; in my dream. I searched for a fixed string in the text. After the first match, I pressed and held down the F3 key (repeat search). Although the search didn't wrap around, the editor kept on finding further matches in the (short, 5-10 lines, a few hundred chars per line) log file. After a few seconds (at 30 new matches / second) I realized that the file contains infinitely many matches, and I realized that I was dreaming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lobelia Overhill (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I can lucid dream, I had a cracker of a lucid dream once where I was in an episode of Stargate SG-1 and there was a "foothold" situation at the SGC, I knew something was 'wrong' because I couldn't run after the others (I 'taught' myself how to run when I'm dreaming) I realised I was dreaming when it dawned on me that I was talking to Daniel Jackson - as soon as I realised it was a dream I started to wake up, but I managed to make myself stay asleep, and carry on following the incidents in the dream until it got 'boring' and I woke myself up ... that dream seemed to be happening in "real time".
My "check" is that I can't walk properly in the dream (usually because of the way I'm laying in bed) in the SG-1 dream when I started to wake up I moved slightly and was able to "twitch" my legs, so I could run in the dream.
I've had a dream where I was getting married and I think I knew I was dreaming, I looked in a mirror, and actually saw my own reflection looking back at me, just like in real life
I have also had several episodes of sleep paralysis, which scared the life out of me until I realised what it was ... I've not had a sleep paralysis for years now.
I make an effort to remember any vivid/lucid dreams I have and post them online :-)

In response to feeling pain, the way that I check is I bite the site of my mouth in my dream. Like the user above said, it's similar to a hollow feeling, and the moment I test this I can control everything -- blast off ceilings, fly, run very fast with never tiring, summon people, etc. --Zalanar —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2009 (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)
I am surprised there is not scientific criticism or skepticism, It sounds a bit hocus-pocus, like "out of body experiences," or "being abducted by UFOs." It is linked to "spirit guides" who are ghosts people interact with while "lucid dreaming." The claims are largely unverifiable. A Google Book search for skepticism about lucid dreaming shows there are some skeptics in the scientific community. The skeptic's dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, ..." By Robert Todd Carroll page 207 notes the criticisms and doubts about lucid dreaming by Malcolm 1959. The limited view available on Google does not give the full cite for the Malcolm article. It might be Norman Malcolm 1959, "Dreaming." Shermer "The skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience, Volume 1" page 28 indicates subtle indications of measurable brain activity correlates of lucid dreaming in some experimental subjects. My impression is that the article is not NPOV at this point. Edison (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2009 (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's really fun.)

Edit by anonymous:

I frequently end up underwater, and I can breath, but I never become lucid this way. It just makes my think I'm scuba diving (I dive in physical reality). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik212 (talkcontribs) 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I often try to remember the details of the room im in before i shut my eyes, and if i concentrate on them, and sortof 'forget' my eyes are closed, i get a vivid mental image of the room (not an accurate one of course) that i can then mess around with. I figure this may be easier for some people as it doesnt require any kind of fantastic initial imagery... just what you saw before you closed your eyes. I dunno if im actually entering rem sleep after this, but it seems dream-like enough, and it usually terminates in me waking up the next morning. 05:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to breathe underwater seems like a bad method for reality testing. What if it turns out not to be a dream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiemmos U (talkcontribs) 06:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If its not a dream, then you wouldnt ask yourself the question "am i dreaming?" in the first place. Except you threw in some psychedelic drugs. So if youre sure youre not under the influence of some drugs and still ask yourself that question then thats enough evidence that youre dreaming

I am in a dilemma. Science claiming lucid dreams to be a proven fact is too absurd to be true. Therefore, I must be dreaming. And now that I am aware of that, the existence of lucid dreams can be considered proven. Help!-- (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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. Dude902 16:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Lucid dreaming in popular culture

Forgive me if I'm doing something wrong by editing the talk this way. I just wanted to say that there was a section in this article called Lucid dreaming in popular culture. I found it very informative and entertaining to read about artistic approaches to this phenomenon. Any chance that you'll bring it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucid Dreaming Wikibook

Hey. I'm (unofficially) taking care of the Lucid Dreaming Wikibook (author is r3m0t), and I added a link to the book, so if you have any questions e-mail me at I don't check my talk page very often... Erik212 03:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucid dreams and religion

There seem to be some religious groups who say that LDs are demonic.. anyone have heard something of that ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Some religons that state that their "god(s)" sometimes speak with dreams consider them evil, but it is divided among the larger religons. I am pretty sure that most forms of Buhddism, and a few forms of Shinto consider it taboo. Most forms of Christianity used to call it demonic. GuyNamedSean (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Buddhism definitely does not consider lucid dreaming taboo. In fact, it is a tantric yoga discipline called Milam (there is a wiki page on it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Reality testing

"Being able to move through solid objects like walls with minimal resistance." Yeah, because being able to move through walls with a lot of resistance could readily be mistaken for real life. 09:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the brain kind of has to have things made very obvious for it to achive a lucid dream. I remember trying (and failing) to run really fast in a non-lucid dream because I wanted to have a lucid dream and run fastly. It seemed logical that because this wasn't working (my leg movements weren't getting me anywhere) that this wasn't a dream. I think that it is easier for the brain to identify a lucid dream when it gets exactly what it expects. If I had expected a lot of resistance when I did that reality check and had my first intentional lucid dream my brain probably would have said something like "This isn't enough resistance for it to be a dream so this isn't a dream.". I would imagine you have to convince parts of your brain that don't know what a dream is to tell the parts that do know that it's a dream. -- 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC) added some information (edit) that is difficult to believe, and it presumably is supported by a website that someone created a couple of days ago. Here is the whois data (I've hidden some information to protect the owner):

Domain ID:D23306066-LRMS
Created On:15-Jan-2008 21:27:50 UTC
Last Updated On:15-Jan-2008 21:32:03 UTC
Expiration Date:15-Jan-2009 21:27:50 UTC
Sponsoring Inc. (R171-LRMS)
Registrant ID:GODA-042231926
Registrant Name:Sherry Han
Registrant Organization:Nerf Druids
Registrant Street1:207 NW [hidden]
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Gainesville
Registrant State/Province:Florida
Registrant Postal Code:32603
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.83[hidden]
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:tsunadepips [at]
Admin ID:GODA-242231926
Admin Name:Sherry Han
Admin Organization:Nerf Druids
Admin Street1:207 NW [hidden]
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Gainesville
Admin State/Province:Florida
Admin Postal Code:32603
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.83[hidden]
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:tsunadepips [at]
Billing ID:GODA-342231926
Billing Name:Sherry Han
Billing Organization:Nerf Druids
Billing Street1:207 NW [hidden]
Billing Street2:
Billing Street3:
Billing City:Gainesville
Billing State/Province:Florida
Billing Postal Code:32603
Billing Country:US
Billing Phone:+1.83[hidden]
Billing Phone Ext.:
Billing FAX:
Billing FAX Ext.:
Billing Email:tsunadepips [at]
Tech ID:GODA-142231926
Tech Name:Sherry Han
Tech Organization:Nerf Druids
Tech Street1:207 NW [hidden]
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Gainesville
Tech State/Province:Florida
Tech Postal Code:32603
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.83[hidden]
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 

No author data is available from the site, and there is no hint of scholarly content. The site fails WP:RS, so I'll revert the additions.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your concern. These are commonly mentioned techniques though. I can vouch for the nose-plug RC personally, and many people have documented using it online. A cursory search didn't turn up anything academic though. Perhaps it would be possible to add e.g. a detailed blog post with RealName and comments which confirm it. Don't think that fits in with the general quality goals of this article tho :-( - i.e. it encourages the behaviour you objected to.
The distorted hand one isn't described very well here; it should be explained that this is what's supposed to happen when you actually look at them. I suspect this owes something to Carlos Castaneda's (read: fraud) books though, and I don't believe actual accounts of success are so common.Sourcejedi (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sleep paralysis

During REM sleep the body is paralyzed by a mechanism in the brain, because otherwise the movements which occur in the dream would actually cause the body to move

Can this sentence/section be rephrased? The brain doesn't paralyze the body in order to stop it from moving. The brain doesn't think "wait a minute, this ol' slob keeps kicking and twisting, so i better paralyze him while he's sleeping". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poposhka (talkcontribs) 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see that the sentence implies "the brain think..." as you seem to interpret it. The sentence is good, since it avoids the word "think". And such a mechanism with such a function exists, even though the "purpose" is an evolution, not any explicit device (unless one associates evolution with some divine will). The evolutionary "purpose" would probably be to get the ol' slob stop wasting energy and do dangerous things when not necessary. Said: Rursus 16:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence because of bad grammar. The new sentence may satisfy your concern. Caffeine927 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Video Games and Lucid Dreaming

I recall some time back, hearing about research that found connections between playing video games and increase or ease of lucid dreams.

Link:[4], [5].

I am a relatively new wikipedian, so I am not sure if this has been debated before (especially with the age of the information). Can someone let me know if this is valid or not? Electrokinetica (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be OK to add, seeing as it has been published in a journal (though you might want to check the status of the journal "Dreaming" first). I don't think there's been debate here on this article, if that's what you mean. I hadn't seen this before personally either.
Intuitively, it seems reasonable. Might take a bit of thinking to fit into the article. I haven't read the paper, but if I did I would like to see how well they distinguished between gamers having vivid, game-like and memorable, but not necessarily lucid dreams.Sourcejedi (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


I remember reading on a historical website about how shamans and other ancient magic-using peoples used to have plants and incense that helped induce lucid dreaming, among other things. Though I can't really remember that well, but it was either saying that the contact with the 'other-world' shamans usually have were really lucid dreams, or if it was saying that they were a combination of hallucinations and lucid dreaming. In any event, is it possible for someone with more, erm...internet expertise to see if they can't find something on shamans and lucid dreaming (perhaps the plants or whatnot that were used to induce it) (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Undid 'Perception of time'

I just undid an unconstructive edit under the 'Perception of time while lucid dreaming' category, and I'm not sure what the usual process is when notifying a user with a IP address ( and I didn't think it was a good idea to post a template on the Talk page of said user because IP addresses tend to change over time. Help, please? Rimmington01 (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, i wouldn't worry about it unless the user becomes persistent. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 21:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reality Testing

"Try jumping into a lake, bathtub, or any other source of water. If you can breathe, it is a dream."

Surely this is impractical seeing as the whole point is that it can be regularly practiced in wakening state hence becoming a habit which is adopted while dreaming? How many of us regularly jump into lakes etc while awake? Marmaladebadger (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Fox's "Astral Projection"

I have removed the anonymous addition from earlier today (24 June) to "Scientific History" which implied that Fox's book "Astral Projection" represented the first scientific study of lucid dreaming, because:

- the book was not "on lucid dreaming", but on out-of-body experiences;

- the field wasn't "barely recognized" at the time of Fox's book, it wasn't recognized at all;

- the book doesn't contain scientific findings, it is simply a journal of Fox's experiences;

- it is misleading to imply that the book recognized the scientific potential of lucid dreams; hence Green's book was the first, not the second, to do so. FWadel (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


If anything relevant and detailed can be said about "Dream Induced Lucid Dream", I think they should be written down under the relevant "Induction Techniques" section.

--WiKID Daryl (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


I don't know if meditation should be mentioned. I don't fall asleep when I meditate but dreams spontaneously occur after about 15 minutes but I am aware, I can hear surrounding sounds although in a state of reverie. The dreams are so vivid and real.--Jondel (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what your saying. -Lea (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

is this an error

in the cultural Hystories Sir Thomas Browne (1605–1682) dream consciously. In 1867, he published his book Les R... is this an error or he achive reincarnation thru dreaming lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Repetition in Research section

These sentences:

"Since dreaming is a subconscious act and thinking is a conscious act, thinking while dreaming merges the two, allowing one more control over their subconscious mind. This can then lead to many benefits like being able to think while sleeping, therefore giving you more time to act while being awake."

are used verbatim in both 2.1 and 2.2. It seems like they should either belong in one section, or in a different section entirely.

Zacqary Adam Green (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Out-of-body experience

I added material to what is now section 7.4 regarding the hypothetical equality of OBE's and WILD's in which the dream setting is one's own sleeping quarters. This idea first came to me after a personal WILD experience of exactly this description. I just want to give kudos to whomever cleaned and tightened the language of my contribution. The result was clear and more consise than I would have imagined possible while keeping virtually every point I made. Just some excellent writing there. My sincere thanks to the editor. Thaliomiles (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Waggoner addition

The following was recently added by an account that appears to be the publishing firm for the book cited. Given the clear confict of interest in such an addition I have moved it here so unconnected editors can consider whether it is an appropriate addition to the article. "As the novice lucid dreamer engages the dream, it is possible to get caught up in the dream drama and lose lucid awareness. Lucid dream author, Robert Waggoner, has noted that by constantly focusing and refocusing on acting in the dream, lucid dreamers maintain a steady conscious awareness. However, if the lucid dreamer completes his or her actions and does not refocus on a new goal, the unconscious mechanism of dreaming may bring forth new dream figures that may capture the attention of the novice lucid dreamer and lead to the loss of lucid awareness." *Waggoner, Robert (2008). Lucid Dreaming Gateway to the Inner Self. ISBN 978-1-930491-14-4. 

The section appears to assert as fact a theory that does not seem to have been tested or subject to significant peer review. Having said that, Waggoner may be an appropriate commentator on lucid dreaming - a bio can be found here. Do others have an opinion or evidence on how well respected he is as a commentator? -- SiobhanHansa 09:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new technique, and has been published elsewhere, including in techniques widely publicly released 15-20 years before by The Lucidity Institute, The DREAMS Foundation and others. To attribute to a specific author other than Stephen LaBerge would be inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dream sign merge template

There's a template in the article saying we should merge the dream signs section with the article Dream sign. Since there is no such article, and ctrl+f brings up no discussion of it on this page, I'm going to go ahead and get rid of that template (and the red links to that page). Sorry in advance if I'm violating some protocol by doing so. -- (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Control of Dream Content

The article states that during lucid dreams you can control dream content. I had my first lucid dream (that I could remeber, and there isn't much to do) about 3 hours before typing this (don't say I forgot alot, it's still night-time for me) and when I realised that it was a dream all I gained was psycokinesis (which I would love having in real life). Soon though, the dream's "bad guy" gained psycokinesis and killed my allys. My closest friend (in the dream) and I were surrounded by the bad guy and his henchmen and my friend was trapped. Then, the bad guy threw a knife at me, I gained more psychic control, and slowed time. The knife hit my back and I woke up. Why did I have so little control? The bad guy said that "All dreams are connected in one world. When two people, or more, dream about things exetremly similar, the dreams are combined," right before showed his powers. Does that mean that my sub-concious wants to tell me something? It does not make sense to me! The article states that you can control the dream. Yes, the dream was "fun" for me, but I would have made it end different, I just couldn't. GuyNamedSean (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The thing is, a lot of things don't make sense, or seem to have some sort of hidden meaning, within a dream. Just because you realise you're dreaming doesn't nessecarily mean you have full control of the dream. This page is about contributing to the article; if you have factual questions not related to contributing to the article, please use the reference desk instead. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 03:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Virtual Dreaming: Total BS

I have been researching "Virtual Dreaming" as described in the Virtual Dreaming section. It is totally fake, the section references a book that was written by fictional people and a fictional organization. The Virtual Dreaming website is also BS, and is the only place on the web that talks about virtual dreaming (everywhere else is just wikis). Delete? -- (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I found this, in which the article Virtual Dreaming was deleted for similar reasons:

I'm going to go ahead and delete the section, if you disagree tell me why. -- (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I deleted the section last month but apparently it was restored by another editor. Feezo (Talk) 06:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Free will?

I'd be curious to read about the exercise of free will during lucid dreaming. From personal experience, I've found I can exercise only small willful actions during lucid dreams. Trying to force the issue leads to disappointment -- e.g. attempting to explore surroundings culminates in finding out there's nowhere to go, or impossibility of movement; trying to see what people are doing results in a depopulated, empty space; trying to fly farther/higher results in grounding, etc. linas (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"NOVADREAMER2 should have been available late 2009."

Did it turn out to not be available or was this predicting the future failure when it was written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)