# Sleep and Dreams > General Dream Discussion >  >  You, the Dream Character

## littlezoe

Did anyone ever wonder about this?

I just had this sudden thought yesterday while watching a movie... that basically your brain stores lots of random people's faces that you see during the day, even if you don't directly look at them or don't even notice them consciously.

Think about it this way... you walk in the city or just basically anywhere in public, lots of people pass by you and they all see you, even if unintentionally in their peripheral vision or by directly looking at you. 

Now think about that in those people's dreams, a Dream Character might just use your look as their own... therefore you become a DC in someone else's dream.
Maybe someone is having recurring dreams and a DC who looks like you is an important character of those dreams...

I'm not sure how much sense this makes, but i found this to be an interesting thought ^^ 

Opinions?

----------


## WDr

Ooo! That would be so cool, thousands of DCs looking like me, running around in peoples mind!  :Bliss:  :Bliss:  :Bliss: 

Anyways, erhm...
I'm sure some of you have heard that all the faces you see in dreams are taken out of the real world. I've hear this saying sometimes... Don't know of it's true though. 
But if it is, it would support the chance of a DC with your look living in a stranger persons mind  :tongue2:

----------


## SnowyCat

watch the episode of "The Twilight Zone" called "Shadowplay"! It's about this guy who has a recurring nightmare and all the dream characters are people he's seen throughout the years...
It's kinda frustrating to a lucid dreamer, though... you'll see why

----------


## littlezoe

> Anyways, erhm...
> I'm sure some of you have heard that all the faces you see in dreams are taken out of the real world. I've hear this saying sometimes... Don't know of it's true though. 
> But if it is, it would support the chance of a DC with your look living in a stranger persons mind



It is true, that's not the question ^^ I was just interested about how you would feel to know that you might be appearing in other people's dreams as a DC  :smiley: 





> watch the episode of "The Twilight Zone" called "Shadowplay"! It's about this guy who has a recurring nightmare and all the dream characters are people he's seen throughout the years...
> It's kinda frustrating to a lucid dreamer, though... you'll see why



Never heard of that before, but i'll check it out, thanks  :smiley:

----------


## Mzzkc

It's not true.

Yes, the human brain is exceptional at recognizing and processing facial features, but it's even more adept at filling in details. I'm not going to go too in-depth, or spend 20 minutes pulling together research no one will read, but the faces of DCs are amalgamations of facial features you've previously seen and _remembered_. 

As such, it's more accurate to say there might be DCs running around with your nose, your ears, or even your hair. But a full reconstruction of a specific person you've barely glanced at is highly unlikely, since that sort of information typically never makes it to working memory, let alone long term memory.

----------


## TheForgotten

> Maybe someone is having recurring dreams and a DC who looks like you is an important character of those dreams...



Doesn't sound unreasonable.  I've had others play reoccurring roles in my dreams.. some on purpose and some accidental.  

Fun part is when you can create nightmares in someones dreams.... and come to think of it, building on highly popular archetypes of what constitutes a typical nightmare is not that difficult.  In fact, it's much easier than one might imagine.  Add a few sprinkles of darkness, a few layers of chase, a decently empty building and voila... only thing left is to add the halfway crazed pursuer and it's a done deal.

----------


## TheForgotten

> It's not true.
> 
> Yes, the human brain is exceptional at recognizing and processing facial features, but it's even more adept at filling in details. I'm not going to go too in-depth, or spend 20 minutes pulling together research no one will read, but the faces of DCs are amalgamations of facial features you've previously seen and _remembered_. 
> 
> As such, it's more accurate to say there might be DCs running around with your nose, your ears, or even your hair. But a full reconstruction of a specific person you've barely glanced at is highly unlikely, since that sort of information typically never makes it to working memory, let alone long term memory.



~~~




> Think about it this way... you walk in the city or just basically anywhere in public, lots of people pass by you and they all see you, even if unintentionally in their peripheral vision or by directly looking at you.



Well, guess she did mention peripherals.... so that's more difficult.

However depending on awareness levels of an individual.. and whether or not photographic or near photographic memory is involved... it's possible to reconstruct someone with a higher level of accuracy than the average person might.  On the other hand, the more normal the individual appears, the less likely they are to notice them... although if you create a unique context in which the person is viewed, it increases the probability of the person being stored in a more long term area of the brain.

It just depends.   :tongue2: 

Although, that would take a lot of effort to do that with everyone we pass.... sooooooo guess that's outside the norm xD

----------


## fhgshfdg

Reminds of the this video I happened upon a month or two ago:





RESEARCH | MATTHEW B. THOMPSON

Very interesting and definitely relevant.

----------


## Mzzkc

> ~~~
> 
> Well, guess she did mention peripherals.... so that's more difficult.
> 
> However depending on awareness levels of an individual.. and whether or not photographic or near photographic memory is involved... it's possible to reconstruct someone with a higher level of accuracy than the average person might.  On the other hand, the more normal the individual appears, the less likely they are to notice them... although if you create a unique context in which the person is viewed, it increases the probability of the person being stored in a more long term area of the brain.
> 
> It just depends.  
> 
> Although, that would take a lot of effort to do that with everyone we pass.... sooooooo guess that's outside the norm xD



Come now; you know there's no evidence for photographic memory.

Eidetic memory, sure, but that's still not going to guarantee long term recall of passing faces.

And yeah, unique context or prolonged exposure would help.

@fhgshfdg:

Very cool. Thanks for sharing that.

----------


## TheForgotten

Case by case trials don't qualify?  

:*(

----------


## SnowyCat

> Case by case trials don't qualify?  
> 
> :*(



of course not! what, do you think we're being SCIENTIFIC?

----------


## TheForgotten

Ooooh alright.  You got me.  I guess we can make it a logical discussion.

----------


## SnowyCat

ahahah
 :wink2:

----------


## Sageous

Okay, now back to the thread:

I think what LittleZoe was talking about here (correct me if I'm wrong, LittleZoe) is more a philosophic look at self-awareness and ego than it is a scientific study of dream residue and memory. 

In other words, the_ real_ thing to think about, when considering that dreams are constructed with the images -- even incomplete ones -- is that your image, or some portion of it, is present in someone else's dreamscape, just because you happened to walk by that someone else once during waking life.  And by extension, if you live and move in a crowded environment like a city, traces of your image might be turning up in the dreams of thousands of other people, every night.

Squint hard enough, and this idea almost casts a tiny shimmer of immortality! Pretty cool!

----------


## littlezoe

> As such, it's more accurate to say there might be DCs running around with your nose, your ears, or even your hair. But a full reconstruction of a specific person you've barely glanced at is highly unlikely, since that sort of information typically never makes it to working memory, let alone long term memory.



Just as there can be DCs running around with some parts of your face, they could be running around with your full face as well. I don't see the difference. Just because you can't remember a face fully, that doesn't mean that it's not stored in your brain, your subconscious can work with it.

Photographic memory allows your conscious self to reconstruct the images perfectly, but you don't have to have photographic memory to make your subconscious able to work with these images.






> Okay, now back to the thread:
> 
> I think what LittleZoe was talking about here (correct me if I'm wrong, LittleZoe) is more a philosophic look at self-awareness and ego than it is a scientific study of dream residue and memory. 
> 
> In other words, the_ real_ thing to think about, when considering that dreams are constructed with the images -- even incomplete ones -- is that your image, or some portion of it, is present in someone else's dreamscape, just because you happened to walk by that someone else once during waking life.  And by extension, if you live and move in a crowded environment like a city, traces of your image might be turning up in the dreams of thousands of other people, every night.
> 
> Squint hard enough, and this idea almost casts a tiny shimmer of immortality! Pretty cool!



At least someone understood it ^^ I'm not sure what was so hard about this for the others... Maybe i just explained badly.






> Doesn't sound unreasonable.  I've had others play reoccurring roles in my dreams.. some on purpose and some accidental.  
> 
> Fun part is when you can create nightmares in someones dreams.... and come to think of it, building on highly popular archetypes of what constitutes a typical nightmare is not that difficult.  In fact, it's much easier than one might imagine.  Add a few sprinkles of darkness, a few layers of chase, a decently empty building and voila... only thing left is to add the halfway crazed pursuer and it's a done deal.



Well... i was talking about DCs using your look as their own, not exactly YOU entering someone else's dream... That's part of another discussion  :smiley:

----------


## TheForgotten

Oh.  I tend to misread ideas.  Oh well.  Back to photographic memory... carry on then  :smiley:

----------


## Carrot

I don't even want to think what they are doing with "me".  ::|:

----------


## TwoCrystalCups

Hell i can make me look better in dreams myself, "transform"  ::lol::  basically no one can take my "looks"

----------


## littlezoe

> Hell i can make me look better in dreams myself, "transform"  basically no one can take my "looks"



You don't understand the point of the thread... which doesn't surprise me...

It's about your real look, not your dream look. You can't decide how you'll look in someone else's dream, when that's just a DC using your look.

----------


## Carrot

Other than keeping my looks in the memory data of their brain and using it to form a DC, I wouldn't be surprised if someone decides to change how I look or dress if I am a DC in their dream.

----------


## moSh

I love the idea of being in strangers' dreams! It makes you realise how much impact you have on so many people without really doing anything at all. Sometimes we forget that by simply walking past someone in the street has an affect on their life, albeit in the smallest way. 

I particularly enjoy when people tell me about their dreams I've featured in, especially if I don't know them all that well. Gives me a taste of how they really see me (even if they don't realise themselves) by interpreting their dream myself.

----------


## Mzzkc

> Just as there can be DCs running around with some parts of your face, they could be running around with your full face as well. I don't see the difference. Just because you can't remember a face fully, that doesn't mean that it's not stored in your brain, your subconscious can work with it.
> 
> Photographic memory allows your conscious self to reconstruct the images perfectly, but you don't have to have photographic memory to make your subconscious able to work with these images.



I already provided you with my reasons, but it seems you ignored them, as expected.

What's more, the fact that you continue to use the term subconscious tells me you don't really know what you're talking about. 

Which is fine, you're entitled to your ignorance, but please don't say things are "true" when you can provide no evidence to support your claim. You should know better than that, given how often you dismiss the ideas of people who discuss or believe in BD topics.

If this were simply a thread where you were musing about an idea, I wouldn't have bothered to comment. However, in your second post, you assert this idea as fact, when anyone who knows even a little bit about how memory works could tell you it isn't, except in extraordinary cases.

----------


## GenericUser777

> Did anyone ever wonder about this?
> 
> I just had this sudden thought yesterday while watching a movie... that basically your brain stores lots of random people's faces that you see during the day, even if you don't directly look at them or don't even notice them consciously.
> 
> Think about it this way... you walk in the city or just basically anywhere in public, lots of people pass by you and they all see you, even if unintentionally in their peripheral vision or by directly looking at you. 
> 
> Now think about that in those people's dreams, a Dream Character might just use your look as their own... therefore you become a DC in someone else's dream.
> Maybe someone is having recurring dreams and a DC who looks like you is an important character of those dreams...
> 
> ...



That is a fairly interesting thought. And it's probably true. I know that your mind never, NEVER creates a face, it always uses one you've seen before. And I've had dreams where in important dream character has a face I just can't recall seeing.

----------


## dakotahnok

*Wow I've never thought about that. That perhaps people who don't know me, may actually have traces of me in their dreams. I could be the murderer chasing them down. Or the love of their lives. Maybe even a worker in Walmart. 

I don't know if I believe that my mind can only dream of faces I know. But that's not the point of this thread. Also I don't know how this would even remotely relate to immortality? 

Anyway littlezoe, this is an interesting thread!

@mzzkc why do you try to argue in every single thread? Why can't you just let things go? You really try too hard to prove other people wrong. Say your piece and move on. Debate a little, but don't be rude. And stop cramming your thoughts down other peoples throat. /enddumbrant*

----------


## TheForgotten

> @mzzkc why do you try to argue in every single thread? Why can't you just let things go? You really try too hard to prove other people wrong. Say your piece and move on. Debate a little, but don't be rude. And stop cramming your thoughts down other peoples throat. /enddumbrant



OOOOO!!!  I know the answer to this one!!!!  Oh wait, mature game face on.  Let me find a place to stash my lolli before I proceed...... ah, there we go.

Everyone here has the right to state their opinion.  Since that is the case, he states his, Littlezoe states hers, and it's all fair game.  

Now I'll state mine.

Littlezoe makes claims that her way is often the 'right' way or 'only' way to complete or experience a task.  This is often unhelpful for people who know little about lucid dreaming and then they begin practicing what she preaches, as fact, and then get confused when they deviate from how the expected path was laid out.  Then people who understand that everyone does things in their own ways... because we are all unique individuals.... they come in and correct the situation at a later date. 

Instead of asking, "Why do you try to argue in every single thread?" .... maybe ask yourself if there's a common denominator in the threads he does argue in.  Yeah, he's a pain in the ass sometimes, but he doesn't bitch and groan without cause.  Most of the bitching is logic based anyway and all he needs to appease him is a bit of data or research.  Or in the case here, all that needed to be changed is how the idea is communicated.  State anything as fact and he turns into a Pit Bull.  State it as a cool thing to think about... and he's .... hell, I don't know... a poodle. 

Personally, I think he does it because he cares.  I would bitch and groan about stuff too except I lack the desire and energy to care that much.  

Oh and doing an '/enddumbrant' takes away from the overall message.  It sounded fierce and fiery before that point.... if you're going to rant, rant.  It's not dumb, stand by your convictions; if you don't, others will step in and place you where we'd like you to stand.   





> That is a fairly interesting thought. And it's probably true. I know that your mind never, NEVER creates a face, it always uses one you've seen before. And I've had dreams where in important dream character has a face I just can't recall seeing.



The mind never creates a face?  Really?  What about when we mix and match noses, eyes, hairlines, or mouths from various people?  Isn't that a creation of a new face?  Your mind might never create a face but mine sure does.  





> You don't understand the point of the thread... which doesn't surprise me...



That was a little mean :\

----------


## littlezoe

> I already provided you with my reasons, but it seems you ignored them, as expected.
> 
> What's more, the fact that you continue to use the term subconscious tells me you don't really know what you're talking about. 
> 
> Which is fine, you're entitled to your ignorance, but please don't say things are "true" when you can provide no evidence to support your claim. You should know better than that, given how often you dismiss the ideas of people who discuss or believe in BD topics.
> 
> If this were simply a thread where you were musing about an idea, I wouldn't have bothered to comment. However, in your second post, you assert this idea as fact, when anyone who knows even a little bit about how memory works could tell you it isn't, except in extraordinary cases.



I know that you are mad at me ever since we first argued on here, but i don't post in your threads just for the sake of arguing, it would be nice if you would keep youself to that too.

Where did you prove any evidence of YOUR claims? I didn't see them anywhere.
Tell me, why would it be so hard to imagine that your subconscious would use a whole face that you've seen during the day? 
You bring up the photographic memory, but that's not even the point here.

But yeah, if you just want to troll my threads, then i advise to stop, little guy  :smiley: 





> Littlezoe makes claims that her way is often the 'right' way or 'only' way to complete or experience a task.  This is often unhelpful for people who know little about lucid dreaming and then they begin practicing what she preaches, as fact, and then get confused when they deviate from how the expected path was laid out.



That's what you think wrong  :smiley:  I don't claim that my ways are the only way. 
I see that you like to keep the back of this Mskcsks guy in every single thread where he attacks me, but this is getting boring.


I made this thread to start a friendly conversation about this whole "DCs using your look" thing and not to start arguing over stupid things.

----------


## TheForgotten

Well... you have a lackey or two... I thought we were tag teaming?  

Actually though, I don't back him up only in the threads where you assume he attacks you.  This makes the second time, and it's just that I agree with him.  As I do with others especially in the other thread we're both speaking about.  It's not only his idea(s) I agree with.  

I think Sageous here was reaching with his attempt to parrot back what you thought you meant.  Although I've noticed others seem to say things you think more clearly than you do... and that's ok too.   I don't actually mind that at all.

I should probably stop agreeing with Mzzkc... and formulate my own ideas and opinions on the matter, right?  Except, I think when people say things that make sense, they should be supported.  It doesn't mean they need it, want it, or deserve it.  It simply means I like what they have to say and in the manner they say it.  I've supported other people in the same way too... not only him.

That and the photographic memory was my thing.  It was somewhat of a joke.

But seriously though, not once has he made a personal attack on you or anyone for that matter.  I've seen a handful of people make various personal remarks and listen, all of this, isn't personal.  The happy faces are silly when combined with insults, the insults are unnecessary.    

We're people sitting at a computer, discussing ideas.  As such, there is some expectation of maturity and logic we can only hope others have as well.  Granted, personally I admit I get a little carried away when I see something just OMG illogical.  However I haven't called anyone stupid, little, or made others feel like they are worth less than I am.  I even think you're pretty nifty too, Littlezoe, just in a different way.

----------


## littlezoe

> Well... you have a lackey or two... I thought we were tag teaming?



I have no idea what's that supposed to mean...





> Actually though, I don't back him up only in the threads where you assume he attacks you.  This makes the second time, and it's just that I agree with him.  As I do with others especially in the other thread we're both speaking about.  It's not only his idea(s) I agree with.



To me it seems like you join in the attack against me... but it's okay, nobody has to like everyone, but i would've liked to keep this thread without hating on eachother.





> I think Sageous here was reaching with his attempt to parrot back what you thought you meant.  Although I've noticed others seem to say things you think more clearly than you do... and that's ok too.   I don't actually mind that at all.



You know, when english isn't your first language, it takes more effort to form your sentences, especially if you are writing a long reply to someone.
If you would know another language then you would understand  :smiley: 





> But seriously though, not once has he made a personal attack on you or anyone for that matter.  I've seen a handful of people make various personal remarks and listen, all of this, isn't personal.  The happy faces are silly when combined with insults, the insults are unnecessary.



There is certainly personal attacks behind this... he is mad at me ever since i first posted in a thread of his, he just can't get over it.
As for my insults, if someone insults me, then i won't just take it like that. It's that simple.






> We're people sitting at a computer, discussing ideas.  As such, there is some expectation of maturity and logic we can only hope others have as well.  Granted, personally I admit I get a little carried away when I see something just OMG illogical.  However I haven't called anyone stupid, little, or made others feel like they are worth less than I am.  I even think you're pretty nifty too, Littlezoe, just in a different way.



I don't see how my idea were less logical than his, but whatever...  :smiley: 

As for your last sentence... that shows exactly the opposite of what you said about not trying to make others seem less worthy than you. But then again, i might've just misunderstood it...  :wink2:

----------


## TheForgotten

> I have no idea what's that supposed to mean...



Sorry, that was meant to be humorous.  





> You know, when english isn't your first language, it takes more effort to form your sentences, especially if you are writing a long reply to someone.
> If you would know another language then you would understand



True, it can take more effort to express yourself in a secondary language.  I speak three other languages, French, Hawaiian, and American Sign Language all equally bad.  One of the neat things I've learned is to observe each culture before trying to impart any knowledge into them... sorta neat like that.





> As for your last sentence... that shows exactly the opposite of what you said about not trying to make others seem less worthy than you. But then again, i might've just misunderstood it...



It could be seen that way.  Or it could be seen as an attempt to communicate with you.

----------


## dakotahnok

*I have to say kaomea, I usually like most of your post. But you are bringing this out a bit too far. I think a few people on here have been rude. Let's just forget what has been said and continue the actual discussion. 

Thanks!*

----------


## TheForgotten

Thank you and I appreciate the comment, dakotahnok.  It's just that I'm not bringing it too far out.  I have questions and concerns.... and want to probe the mind behind the words.  

Imagine, if when we ask others questions... they give them serious consideration.  Sometimes the greatest influences in my life have been people who've challenged my own way of thinking.  I'm doing that now too, considering how her words hold value to her... I don't take things too far unless I think it would be helpful... to someone... might not be the person I push against but there are always other people around who might benefit from it.

I also get that it's important to get along and respect each others ideas.  I have absolutely no problem going that route too.  Except I want to learn something, maybe even teach something... or at least influence something.  Others might not have the same ideals in mind but sometimes it's important to do what's right for you.  

I'm sorry if anything I said offends you.  Or Littlezoe for that matter.  Sometimes though, stuff happens.  It doesn't mean I like anyone less when I question them or their methods.  It simply means I wish to understand them better.

----------


## Carrot

I want to read some essays and research on faces appearing in your dream and how much details can we actually remember from a glance to make a stranger our DC but I don't know where to start. Any help? 

But I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a decent reconstruction of our face in a stranger's dream.

----------


## Sageous

> Well... you have a lackey or two... I thought we were tag teaming?  
> 
> I think Sageous here was reaching with his attempt to parrot back what you thought you meant.  Although I've noticed others seem to say things you think more clearly than you do... and that's ok too.   I don't actually mind that at all.



I am not a Lackey. Kaomea.  I posted in an attempt to get the thread back on course and away from the sophomoric, bickering argument to which you otherwise thoughtful folks have reduced this thread.  

I wasn't defending Littlezoe. I was trying to restore the thread to the theme of its OP (_whoeve_r made it), and away from this spewing fountain of nonsense that had nothing to do with the OP.  I obviously failed.

Please don't drag me into your petty (and apparently long-running) squabbles.

----------


## Mzzkc

A quick rejoiner.





> @mzzkc why do you try to argue in every single thread? Why can't you just let things go? You really try too hard to prove other people wrong. Say your piece and move on. Debate a little, but don't be rude. And stop cramming your thoughts down other peoples throat. /enddumbrant



Because I give a shit about accuracy, correctness, and truth?

Which I guess is something to look down on in today's world, yeah?

But it's wonderful to know you're doing your part for the greater good, dakotahnok! The council won't be sacrificing you to the harvest gods, nosiree.

But let's be realistic. If no one dissented here, the entire thread would fill up with same post, ad nauseum. I'd rather this forum be filled with interesting, worthwhile discussion, but that's a two-way street.





> I know that you are mad at me ever since we first argued on here, but i don't post in your threads just for the sake of arguing, it would be nice if you would keep youself to that too.



Ad hominem.

I'm not attacking you.

I'm questioning the validity of the ideas you've presented.

What's more, you can't rightfully claim the moral high-ground here, because you do the same thing to BD folk all the time. Anyone who doesn't believe that can verify it by looking through her on-topic post history.

Aside: I believe you might be projecting, here, as I hold no ill will toward you, nor am I quick to anger or even a person who holds grudges.





> Where did you prove any evidence of YOUR claims? I didn't see them anywhere.



Burden of proof, etc., etc. You know the drill.

Also, did you even look? What databases and peer-reviewed articles did you scour to reach this conclusion?





> Tell me, why would it be so hard to imagine that your subconscious would use a whole face that you've seen during the day?



Because:

1 - There is no such thing as the "subconscious." (please define you terms)

2 - Due to the way memory has been shown to work, brief, unimportant, unrehearsed, sensory input will vanish completely within moments. (source; If you're interested in more recent research/models that account for some of the discrepancies in Atkinson and Shiffrin's proposal, you can look into the Temporal Context Model.)

3 - Recall is often built via association (TCM), and association has been observed and independently determined to be the driving factor behind dream formation by many of the LDing communities top minds.

It then follows that only the faces of friends, relatives, coworkers, acquaintances, or those you've spent time/interacted with in a meaningful way will have any chance of showing up in dreams, and even then you aren't guaranteed a close match.





> You bring up the photographic memory, but that's not even the point here.



Clear evidence you're not reading/comprehending my posts or following the thread.

I _purposefully_ left out any mention of photographic memory in the post you quoted because it was obviously a straw man.





> But yeah, if you just want to troll my threads, then i advise to stop, little guy



Ad hominem.

Aside: The irony here is hilarious, if anyone else caught it. Don't know if it was intentional, but props if it was. ^.^





> That's what you think wrong  I don't claim that my ways are the only way.



Contradiction.





> I see that you like to keep the back of this Mskcsks guy in every single thread where he attacks me, but this is getting boring.



Aside: I apologize for boring you with thoughtful discussion. But don't worry, I'll let you go back to playing make-believe soon enough.





> I made this thread to start a friendly conversation about this whole "DCs using your look" thing and not to start arguing over stupid things.



Ad hominem.

Also, contradiction in convictions:

You mean just like that Djinn guy did. Or that dude who cracked a dirty joke.






> There is certainly personal attacks behind this... he is mad at me ever since i first posted in a thread of his, he just can't get over it.



Ad hominem.

Aside: You're projecting again. Do you _really_ hate the part of you that likes to debate that much?





> As for my insults, if someone insults me, then i won't just take it like that. It's that simple.



Pro tip #1: Look at things objectively and try not to make debates personal.





> I don't see how my idea were less logical than his, but whatever...



Pro tip #2: Address the arguments presented to you. Falling into logical fallacies doesn't help your case.





> As for your last sentence... that shows exactly the opposite of what you said about not trying to make others seem less worthy than you. But then again, i might've just misunderstood it...



Correct approach, but as you pointed out this was likely a misunderstanding caused by turn of phrase. Kaomea appears to mean that she likes you, but not in the same ways that she likes me. It's like saying "I enjoy Show A because of the rich and complex characters, but I also enjoy Show B because the writing is brilliant and often hilarious."

Pro tip #3: Don't attack obvious straw men, if you can avoid it.


Finally, as I did in a previous thread, this is an explicit offer to hold a discussion. I've presented my arguments, explicitly clarified them, and provided sources where relevant. You can either do the same, or continue to make ad hominem attacks.

----------


## moSh

> I want to read some essays and research on faces appearing in your dream and how much details can we actually remember from a glance to make a stranger our DC but I don't know where to start. Any help?



I'd love to help you with that, in fact I'd love to see some of that myself, but I can't imagine there's been a way to test how accurate images in dreams are. We'll have to wait until they find a way of exporting our dreams to some sort of video player, like in Paprika  :smiley: 

What I do know about somewhat is what we learnt about in A level psychology. We did a ton on cognitive psychology, which involved remembering and forgetting. The recurring theme (which you'd no doubt guess yourself) is that the more meaningful something is, the more likely you are to remember it. The phenomenon of 'flashbulb memory' was particularly interesting, which is where some things just stick in your memory no matter how seemingly insignificant is, a common example being what _exactly_ you were doing when the Twin Towers fell. Obviously this is a hugely significant memory for a lot of people, and it tends to strengthen the memories of everything personally associated with that event.

Relating it to this thread I'd say there's a chance that if you only glanced a person once in your whole life, but that moment happened to have a particularly significant impact on your, you'd remember that person very, very well.

----------


## littlezoe

> Relating it to this thread I'd say there's a chance that if you only glanced a person once in your whole life, but that moment happened to have a particularly significant impact on your, you'd remember that person very, very well.



You are talking about memories that you can access... But i'm sure there are memories stored that you can't directly access, but in dreams they can still show up. Hence why you might be able to re-experience moments from your childhood in dreams that you might've fully forgot already, althrough it's still somewhere in your memory.

----------


## Mzzkc

> I want to read some essays and research on faces appearing in your dream and how much details can we actually remember from a glance to make a stranger our DC but I don't know where to start. Any help?




Check out the links posted by fhgshfdg and myself. Also, look for relevant papers published by the IASD.

Finally, try not to overly restrict your search parameters. In other words, don't look exclusively for dream related content, as much of the information you're looking for can be deduced by studying perception and memory _in addition_ to dream formation and the like.





> But I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a decent reconstruction of our face in a stranger's dream.



That's excellent. You shouldn't rule out any possibilities until you've carefully weighed all the evidence that exists. =)





> You are talking about memories that you can access... But i'm sure there are memories stored that you can't directly access, but in dreams they can still show up. Hence why you might be able to re-experience moments from your childhood in dreams that you might've fully forgot already, althrough it's still somewhere in your memory.



Why are you positive this is the case?

----------


## moSh

> You are talking about memories that you can access... But i'm sure there are memories stored that you can't directly access, but in dreams they can still show up. Hence why you might be able to re-experience moments from your childhood in dreams that you might've fully forgot already, althrough it's still somewhere in your memory.



Sorry, yes, I meant both accessible and consciously-inaccessible memories but failed to make that explicit.

----------


## littlezoe

> Sorry, yes, I meant both accessible and consciously-inaccessible memories but failed to make that explicit.



So you mean even the consciously inaccessible memories would work that way?

----------


## moSh

Almost definitely, I'd wager that your unconscious mind would find semantic links in your experiences even more than your conscious mind. 

I think that's what I think anyway, I'm finding it hard to get my head around at present. I'm having quite a slow day.

----------


## littlezoe

> Almost definitely, I'd wager that your unconscious mind would find semantic links in your experiences even more than your conscious mind. 
> 
> I think that's what I think anyway, I'm finding it hard to get my head around at present. I'm having quite a slow day.



Well, at least that's more believable when you say it a way that your comment is not filled with insults  :smiley: 

Anyway... i keep the possibility that it might work that way, but i believe that even if you only seen a random person once, the consciously inaccessible memory could still store that person's image.... but i guess this would be hard to test...

----------


## Carrot

> Reminds of the this video I happened upon a month or two ago:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RESEARCH | MATTHEW B. THOMPSON
> 
> Very interesting and definitely relevant.



Oh holy. The faces were creeping me out as I stared at the cross in the middle. Am I doing it right? 





> I'd love to help you with that, in fact I'd love to see some of that myself, but I can't imagine there's been a way to test how accurate images in dreams are. We'll have to wait until they find a way of exporting our dreams to some sort of video player, like in Paprika 
> 
> What I do know about somewhat is what we learnt about in A level psychology. We did a ton on cognitive psychology, which involved remembering and forgetting. The recurring theme (which you'd no doubt guess yourself) is that the more meaningful something is, the more likely you are to remember it. The phenomenon of 'flashbulb memory' was particularly interesting, which is where some things just stick in your memory no matter how seemingly insignificant is, a common example being what _exactly_ you were doing when the Twin Towers fell. Obviously this is a hugely significant memory for a lot of people, and it tends to strengthen the memories of everything personally associated with that event.
> 
> Relating it to this thread I'd say there's a chance that if you only glanced a person once in your whole life, but that moment happened to have a particularly significant impact on your, you'd remember that person very, very well.



Oh yes, what was I thinking. I'm a little tired too. There's no way to test vividness in your dream since it is hugely dependent on your recall. Even if someone did a test on their dreams and attempt to recall facial features in each dreams, I don't think many will believe the test results because there's no visual evidence for them to see.





> 2 - Due to the way memory has been shown to work, brief, unimportant, unrehearsed, sensory input will vanish completely within moments. (source; If you're interested in more recent research/models that account for some of the discrepancy in Atkinson and Shiffrin's proposal, you can look into the Temporal Context Model.)



Your source link led me to an interesting thought about the power of our brains. Our mind actually had the power to reconstruct a face (with bits and pieces of memories here and there) without it being distorted. It's able to blend in different parts of each features to form a face. I admit most of the faces I see in my dreams are blurred but there's no abnormalities with them because I could sense it's normal otherwise I would have reacted loudly in my dreams. On one incident, I even managed to remember the facial features of a boy in my dream rather clearly and the features looked normal too.

----------


## moSh

> Your source link led me to an interesting thought about the power of our brains. Our mind actually had the power to reconstruct a face (with bits and pieces of memories here and there) without it being distorted. It's able to blend in different parts of each features to form a face. I admit most of the faces I see in my dreams are blurred but there's no abnormalities with them because I could sense it's normal otherwise I would have reacted loudly in my dreams. On one incident, I even managed to remember the facial features of a boy in my dream rather clearly and the features looked normal too.



That relates to another bit of A level psychology we looked at, that I almost put in my earlier post, called 'reconstructive memory'. All the studies we looked at showed the incredible (though often misleading) way in which our mind's fill in the gaps in our memory with whatever seems most logical. This gives us 'false memories', where our mind _assumes_ information based on previously built 'schemas' (archives of compiled data which are similar in some way). Unfortunately, this is often inaccurate, and in extreme cases can lead to negative stereotyping: one study showed participants a picture of one man holding another at the end of a knife, but only for a very brief time. The results showed that the majority of the participants 'remembered' the assailant to be black and the victim white, despite it actually being the other way round.

----------


## Mzzkc

> Anyway... i keep the possibility that it might work that way, but i believe that even if you only seen a random person once, the consciously inaccessible memory could still store that person's image.... but i guess this would be hard to test...



So the entirety of your argument is based on faith, then? 

You don't have to respond, I just want you to be aware of the possibility that you have no basis for your argument outside of belief.

I am glad that there's an actual discussion going on now, and that you've calmly responded to my questions, albeit indirectly.

@Carrot: There's a ton of interesting research out there on human face recognition and reconstruction. The big points discussed being familiarity, fallibility of memory, the impact of environmental deficits and development, etc. 

Ever hear the phrase "Every *insert ethnicity here* person looks the same to me"? Apparently, there's some scientific backing to that assertion. XP

----------


## Carrot

> Every hear the phrase "Every *insert ethnicity here* person looks the same to me"? Apparently, there's some scientific backing to that assertion. XP



I get that all the time for Asians.  ::?:

----------


## tsiouz

Subconcious chooses to keep images you don't consider often importand as part of it's code.

----------


## littlezoe

> I get that all the time for Asians.



Well... there is some truth in that..

No offense  :smiley: 

Edit: But then again, when talking like that, it's about most people, not all.

To me most short brown/black haired guys look the same for example...

----------


## moSh

> Well... there is some truth in that..
> 
> No offense



I've been looking at this for a while now and I'm struggling to find a way in which that remark isn't offensive. Please be a bit more careful with the way you phrase things, especially when they refer to generalising a whole ethnicity.

----------


## littlezoe

> I've been looking at this for a while now and I'm struggling to find a way in which that remark isn't offensive. Please be a bit more careful with the way you phrase things, especially when they refer to generalising a whole ethnicity.



Well... then how else can i say it to not seem like that? 

I'm not generalising, this is how me and many others see it. I'm not sure what ethnicity you are from, but i think this is true for most. Once i was talking with an asian guy years ago in my city and he told me the exact same thing, that to him we almost all look the same. I didn't take offense at all, we just laughed at it.
I have no problem with asian people, especially not with Carrot. This is not about being mean towards them, it's just how i (and others) see it... i can't change that...


But the thread is derailing a lot now...

----------


## moSh

Apologies, I mistook your comment for being specific to Asians. I realise upon re-reading it that it was most likely speaking more generally!

I really am having a slow day...


[EDIT]

This whiskey is surely not helping.

----------


## TheForgotten

> I am not a Lackey. Kaomea.



I'm sorry Sageous.  When I said this I wasn't speaking of you.  I've read a number of your posts in other threads and one of the things you are consistent with is that you don't side with people.  You side with ideas.  The only thing I meant when I brought your name up was the fact that you rephrased the OP in a more elegant manner than the original.  





> I was trying to restore the thread to the theme of its OP (_whoeve_r made it), and away from this spewing fountain of nonsense that had nothing to do with the OP.  I obviously failed.



Actually, sometimes taking the scenic (nonsense) route eventually does lead back to the original destination.  I apologize if I can't always stay on task, I acknowledge my habit of deviating off course but rest assured, I do come back to the OP in some form.  That and sometimes when we are questioned, we're forced to reformulate our ideas and dig our heels in a bit deeper.... or we decide to add or subtract various points and represent information.  Disagreements on any level can be helpful in some cases... even if they initially appear disadvantageous.  





> That relates to another bit of A level psychology we looked at, that I almost put in my earlier post, called 'reconstructive memory'. All the studies we looked at showed the incredible (though often misleading) way in which our mind's fill in the gaps in our memory with whatever seems most logical. This gives us 'false memories', where our mind _assumes_ information based on previously built 'schemas' (archives of compiled data which are similar in some way). Unfortunately, this is often inaccurate, and in extreme cases can lead to negative stereotyping: one study showed participants a picture of one man holding another at the end of a knife, but only for a very brief time. The results showed that the majority of the participants 'remembered' the assailant to be black and the victim white, despite it actually being the other way round.



Hence why eye-witness accounts are so flimsy.  Although the idea of fabricated memories are incredibly interesting.  I mean, what we remember is often flawed in some form... we only remember key details, not entire events.  When I say entire events, I mean everyone who passed your line of vision, each sound a person, animal, or inanimate object produced, and even the various scents which waft through the air.  It's just too much stimuli to process and record that we have to select which to perceive, let alone store.  It's fascinating.  

Given that idea, it makes me wonder what exactly is an unflawed memory?  Memory itself is flawed in some form... and then when we attempt to reconstruct stored memories details might deviate a lot or a little.  It's quite fun to consider that at the end of it all, we remember not what actually happened but what we experienced.





> I get that all the time for Asians.



And what's funny is you are Asian and you LIKE Asians... I would think that would be the one ethnicity you would be able to differentiate between.  I have this issues with white people... I don't see very many of them on a regular basis.  I would be specific as to which 'white' but I never really thought to ask xD Then again, I get people asking me if I’m so and so and that I look really familiar when I don’t know them at all.  I guess they haven’t figured out differences in my ethnic background either.

----------


## Carrot

> And what's funny is you are Asian and you LIKE Asians... I would think that would be the one ethnicity you would be able to differentiate between.  I have this issues with white people... I don't see very many of them on a regular basis.  I would be specific as to which 'white' but I never really thought to ask xD Then again, I get people asking me if Im so and so and that I look really familiar when I dont know them at all.  I guess they havent figured out differences in my ethnic background either.



I'm actually only able to differentiate people if I hear them speak. I might have a hard time differentiating Chinese from different countries too.

----------


## Neo Neo

This is an interesting idea! Have not really thought of this before. I know I`ve had times in dreams with meaningful or intense interactions with other DCs, and I wonder if I`ve popped into others dreams as well. I think about that too sometimes, how we go about our days passing by lots of people, and how much of that ends up being part of our DCs. Being a DC in someone else`s dream, from their perspective, could be in any kind of situation. So, in someone else`s dreams I could be having conversations, causing problems, being funny, its interesting to think how someone else`s unconscious mind would use you as a DC. Maybe interactions in waking life help determine how you are as a DC in someone else`s dream too.

----------


## Ilumirath

> Reminds of the this video I happened upon a month or two ago:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RESEARCH | MATTHEW B. THOMPSON
> 
> 
> Very interesting and definitely relevant.



Thanks for the trippy nightmare I'mma have next time I'm sleeping :O

----------


## moSh

> Hence why eye-witness accounts are so flimsy.



Arr eyewitness reliability was so done to death on my course that I shudder every time I hear it mentioned! It's quite sad though the amount of people wrongly convicted simply based on an inaccurate eyewitness testimony. I think there's some organisation attempting to go over all potential wrongly convicted cases for this reason, and I think at the time we looked at it, they'd released 70% of convicts due to the arrival at the fact the eyewitness's memory was false.

----------

