# Lucid Dreaming > General Lucid Discussion >  >  Lucid Dreaming Controversy

## O'nus

There is a lot of controversy over the possibility of lucid dreaming and its benefits.  Or, how you define a lucid dream.

Some assert that lucid dreaming is in fact impossible and that you only dream of lucid dreams. Thus, you are not having authentic lucid dreams but dreaming of luicd dreaming. To this I say, you are still lucid dreaming. Whichever the context is, you are still in some kind of control of these lucid dreams. You may not do what you originally intended to before falling asleep, but you are still under the impression, or are, in control of your dreams.

Also, some assert that lucid dreaming is actually adverse to psychological development. They purport that you must face your issues and conflicts without any delusion, cheating, or inauthentic methods. I would not call lucid dreaming cheating or inauthentic as it teaches the individual how to control their dreams, their fears, and give them an overall sense of higher self-confidence as they now have much more control in their mind. With the results I have seen with lucid dreamers, I have yet to see one have substitute psychological issues or have none resolved. In fact, I attribute most of my rise out of depression to lucid dreams (the rest I attribute to my precious Ruby).

Either way, the lucid dreaming opposers assert that lucid dreaming is fake and encourge a pejorative connotation to lucidity.  However, this is not like "the Matrix" - is there any consequences of a "fake" lucid dream?  Is this to say that non-lucid dreams are more beneficial?  

Lucid dreaming skeptics usually make the effort to simply postulate that authentic dreaming is simply not real.  They may agree to all of the above but still argue - lucidity is still not authentic.  

What do you think..?
~

----------


## DrTechnical

I don't think the phenomenon of LDing is controvertial at all. Laberge came up with a clever experiment. Leveraging the fact that eye position in a dream is identical to that of your physical eyes, they came up with a series of eye motions the dreamer would convey to lab techs if in fact the dreamer became lucid. The dreamer was wired to an EEG to monitor for REM. Sure enough, during a monitored REM state, the dreamer was able to communicate the pre-determined sequence of eye motions to the awake observer.

I think that's pretty clear evidence.

----------


## Bonsay

I agree with your opinions on skepticism, although I must say that I haven't really seen any "real" skeptics besides the ones on the Skeptic dictionary (or whatever it's called), which only explained their point of view with the usual dreaming about LDing argument.

So first I'd like to see some more skeptics and their opinions, so I could actually have a good discussion about the truth of LDing with them. But I guess you are right with your ending statement, that people don't really care about dreams... if that was what you wanted to say.

----------


## Jdeadevil

I think that's a good chunk of text, did you type that or copy it?

Whatever you did, it gives me the idea that lucid dreaming is some kind of extreme cure for the mind. And I do have these thoughts of self-confidence, I mean, if you could imagine yourself doing somethng over and over, it woudn't be real, hence you can keep pressing the restart button, which is one of it's cures, the fact you can keep pressing the restart button or go to level select and then choose your fighter... Sorry, I mean, it's kind of like a training mode in a video game, you can practice untill you are comfortable with that part of life. I mean, I read somewhere that someone jumped over the bar table and spat bear at the guy behind the bar, and then he ran off going "You're crazy man", so yeah, training mode.

The people who don't believe in it, I could see why, it seems impossible that you could basically 'Aeon Flux' your way into success in life, in that way I mean (if you've seen it) some guy kissing the main character, secretly giving her a special pill or object of some sort, which goes into her brain and then she recieves a mission of some sort. Yes I know it isn't anything to do with lucidity but that's kind of how clear people tell you it is when all the reader can do is look at the monitor with their jaw dropped and think "That's amazing", I mean, I'v never done it myself so for all I know, it could be fake. But I don't actually think it's fake, I think it just takes more than normal practice, I know I'll do it and that's what I believe.

That was to O'nus, by the way, just incase....

----------


## O'nus

> I don't think the phenomenon of LDing is controvertial at all. Laberge came up with a clever experiment. Leveraging the fact that eye position in a dream is identical to that of your physical eyes, they came up with a series of eye motions the dreamer would convey to lab techs if in fact the dreamer became lucid. The dreamer was wired to an EEG to monitor for REM. Sure enough, during a monitored REM state, the dreamer was able to communicate the pre-determined sequence of eye motions to the awake observer.
> 
> I think that's pretty clear evidence.



Here is the study you are referring to:
http://ft.csa.com/ids70/resolver.php..._2_88&mode=pdf

This study is subject to one very pertinent objection:
- The verification of lucidity could be easily attested to conditional reflexes.

That is what is typically purported against lucidity.  Unfortunately, it becomes complex and nearly impossible to argue or prove.  Science does have limits and we cannot share consciousness.  

However, if we accept this as a conscious verification, as opposed to reflexive, then there really is no controversy.

Edit:  I should add that this verification still does not prove the authenticity of potential "lucid actions" that can take place within dreams.  This is what I am referring to when I say we cannot share consciousness - we cannot prove that other actions in my dream environment are truly lucid or just dreams of lucidity.  
~

----------


## Bonsay

> Edit:  I should add that this verification still does not prove the authenticity of potential "lucid actions" that can take place within dreams.  This is what I am referring to when I say we cannot share consciousness - we cannot prove that other actions in my dream environment are truly lucid or just dreams of lucidity.  
> ~



I still don't understand the logic behind "dreaming of lucidity", it is illogical. How can you dream about being aware in a dream. Even if somehow you dreamt that, it would still be a normal LD in the end. You can dream about control, but that's not lucid dreaming. Anyone want to explain the reasoning behind this claim, to me?

----------


## O'nus

> I still don't understand the logic behind "dreaming of lucidity", it is illogical. How can you dream about being aware in a dream. Even if somehow you dreamt that, it would still be a normal LD in the end. You can dream about control, but that's not lucid dreaming. Anyone want to explain the reasoning behind this claim, to me?



Allow me to demonstrate:

I had a dream the other night that I was lucid and did X activity. 

Or, before going to sleep, I intend to have a lucid dream and do X action.  However, when I dream, I dream about a lucid dream and do Y action.

Do you see what I mean..?  It is fully possible to dream about lucid dreams.  However, this does not necessarily mean that true lucid dreams are impossible.  It is simply asserting that you can dream of being in a luicd dream.
~

----------


## Bonsay

If you do thing Y, does it really mean that you weren't aware? I do Y things all the time. Every LD I've had was an Y thing. I never do what I wanted to do the day before. I definitely am a different person in a LD, but I'm still lucid. Perhaps this is the question, how close is lucid awareness to a waking one? In that case it's all relative.

Ok, I guess it could be possible to dream about lucid dreaming, meaning that in the dream you had no awareness. But that means it wasn't a lucid but a normal dream. The only way I see possible is some partial awareness, like day-dreaming about LDing through the dream itself. You would actually be dreaming it, but wouldn't be aware of the dream. I still don't see it any other way than the one I mentioned before.

Bah, I hope you understand what I'm thinking about  :tongue2: .

----------


## O'nus

> If you do thing Y, does it really mean that you weren't aware? I do Y things all the time. Every LD I've had was an Y thing. I never do what I wanted to do the day before. I definitely am a different person in a LD, but I'm still lucid. Perhaps this is the question, how close is lucid awareness to a waking one? In that case it's all relative.
> 
> Ok, I guess it could be possible to dream about lucid dreaming, meaning that in the dream you had no awareness. But that means it wasn't a lucid but a normal dream. The only way I see possible is some partial awareness, like day-dreaming about LDing through the dream itself. You would actually be dreaming it, but wouldn't be aware of the dream. I still don't see it any other way than the one I mentioned before.
> 
> Bah, I hope you understand what I'm thinking about .



Yes, partial-lucidity is quite frequent.

However, is it not possible to have a dream (a normal dream) about having a lucid dream?  

Considering these paradoxical implications is the grounds for the lucid dreaming controversy.
~

----------


## Jeff777

If dreams are the language of the soul, then lucid dreams must be a fantastic conversation with it.

----------


## Jamal

Interesting...

----------


## skysaw

Stuff and nonsense.

----------


## Caradon

Well, I've had many Lucid Dreams so I know for a fact they are real. Lucid just means you know you are dreaming. If you know your dreaming, you know your dreaming! How can that be fake? Unless you know your dreaming but really awake LOL.

Anyway, my own experience is all the proof I need. :smiley: 

If you really doubt, next time your fully Lucid in a dream. Think about this thread and decide the truth of it while you are in the dream!

----------


## skysaw

I think the completion of the monthly tasks is proof enough that it's happening.

----------


## Caradon

> I think the completion of the monthly tasks is proof enough that it's happening.



Yeah, I was thinking about that as well.

----------


## O'nus

> I think the completion of the monthly tasks is proof enough that it's happening.



I think you guys are missing the objection.

Is it not possible that you are dreaming, as in having normal dreams, of these lucid dream tasks?  Also, is it not possible that some people are liars?

I am not an advocate of the controversy (obviously) but I do like to consider all cogent skepticism.
~

----------


## innerspacecadet

I don't think the distinction between lucid dreaming and dreaming about lucid dreaming is an important one.  In either case you have some sense that you're dreaming and can act out of the bounds of ordinary dreams (well, to differing degrees depending on how lucid you are - my last lucid dream, I did hardly any dream control, apart from the reality check via fighting with a dream character to confirm I was dreaming).  You can't dispute the existence of an experience of knowing you're dreaming at some level any more than you can dispute the existence of an inner experience of what the color blue looks like.  Neither can be proven from outside.

In my experience, though, I've never been able to attain a level of awareness that quite matches what I'd expect if my mind were awake.  Even my more lucid lucids are mostly run by the subconscious, and I'm likely to assume I have certain limits that I don't necessarily have.

----------


## skysaw

> I think you guys are missing the objection.
> 
> Is it not possible that you are dreaming, as in having normal dreams, of these lucid dream tasks?



I maintain that there is no difference. All a dream consists of is thoughts. Therefore to say that you are "only dreaming" of a thought is redundant.





> Also, is it not possible that some people are liars?



It also does not matter if only _some_ of the people are liars. At least I know I can do it, and that's good enough for me. For anyone else, LaBerges studies should be sufficient.

----------


## Captain Sleepalot

To use their line of logic could mean we could say that while *awake* we are _dreaming about being awake and conscious_, but really everything is automatic and response-based.

But anyway, the benefits that I can see from lucid dreaming are:

1. Practice facing your fears in a dream, where you are free from worry of actually being hurt. This can help you to gain the confidence to take on this fear in the real world (say, a fear of clowns).

2. Strengthening your reasoning faculties and honing your critical thinking skills. These are both required for a person to fully experience a lucid dream and know that they are in actuality asleep and dreaming right then.

3. Strengthening your skills of observation. Observation is crucial to first determining whether or not you are dreaming, and also helps to ground yourself lucidly in the dream environment.

4. Exploring and expanding your creative mind. We all know weird stuff happens in dreams, and even in lucids can frequently see images that don't rationally belong together.

----------


## O'nus

> I maintain that there is no difference. All a dream consists of is thoughts. Therefore to say that you are "only dreaming" of a thought is redundant.
> 
> 
> It also does not matter if only _some_ of the people are liars. At least I know I can do it, and that's good enough for me. For anyone else, LaBerges studies should be sufficient.



I posted that study and, as I said, it is still subject to this criticism; his verification methods could very easily be reflexive.

I just want to note that I am playing the devils advocate here.  Personally, I have had significant benefits from lucid dreaming and dream interpretation.  Whether they are authentic or not is irrelevant because it has helped me.  Unlike the Matrix idea, a possible inauthentic lucid dream is in no way (that I can tell) detrimental to my well-being.

However, it is still interesting to note the paradox that is implied.  

What you are saying then, is that there is no difference between normal dreams and lucid dreams because you are saying that a dream about a lucid dream is still a lucid dream.  So, a luicd dream about a normal dream is what then..?  By that I mean to have absolute lucidity and then decide to have a normal dream.  Try this.

Do you see the paradoxical implications and their problems with lucid dreaming..?
~

----------


## Luminous

I'm not sure if this made any sense to me... but I'm sure that everyone who has had a lucid dream will tell you (or those doing this study) that it's very possible. How can you dream of being in a lucid dream, doesn't that make you genuine lucid anyways?

No offense meant to anyone here, I'm just trying to understand here.  :tongue2:

----------


## skysaw

> What you are saying then, is that there is no difference between normal dreams and lucid dreams because you are saying that a dream about a lucid dream is still a lucid dream.



Not sure how you made that leap. Of course there's a difference: awareness that you are dreaming. This is the only definition of lucid dreaming that I'm aware of. You can't have a normal dream that you are having a lucid because as soon as you tell yourself "I'm dreaming," you are by definition having a lucid.

----------


## Bonsay

The only important thing in lucid dreaming is the awareness. That's what makes a lucid lucid. Since we don't have any awareness detectors, you'll never know if the subject is lucid or just dreaming of tasks.

----------


## O'nus

> Not sure how you made that leap. Of course there's a difference: awareness that you are dreaming. This is the only definition of lucid dreaming that I'm aware of. You can't have a normal dream that you are having a lucid because as soon as you tell yourself "I'm dreaming," you are by definition having a lucid.



Okay, I'll try to demonstrate this in two examples:

Lucid Dreaming of a Normal Dream:
*Falls into sleep* "Hey, now that I am lucid, I am going to have a regular dream." *Follows with a normal sporadic dream that I induced*

Normal Dream of a Lucid Dream:
A sporadic normal dream about the idea of lucid dreaming.

Does this help..?
~

----------


## O'nus

> The only important thing in lucid dreaming is the awareness. That's what makes a lucid lucid. Since we don't have any awareness detectors, you'll never know if the subject is lucid or just dreaming of tasks.



Yes, that is exactly the problem.

Further, you can dream about being aware and not actually be aware.  Get it?
~

----------


## O'nus

> It also does not matter if only _some_ of the people are liars. At least I know I can do it, and that's good enough for me. For anyone else, LaBerges studies should be sufficient.



I noticed that my link above is not working.  Here is a link to Laberges published studies:

http://ft.csa.com/ids70/resolver.php..._2_88&mode=pdf

That should work as long as it is publicly available..
~

----------


## Luminous

O'nus, what about those of us to take complete control of our lucid dreams, and manipulate it, even decide what to dream? How is that then explained?

----------


## O'nus

> O'nus, what about those of us to take complete control of our lucid dreams, and manipulate it, even decide what to dream? How is that then explained?



Now please keep in mind that I am simply acting as a discourse catalyst - I do believe in the benefits of lucid dreaming.

However, for what you said, there is no scientific support for this.  Furthermore, there is truly no way to prove it as of it besides speculation.  This is because any proof will be hearsay and subject to bias, lying, and simply no empirical evidence.

Consider that these two situations are possible: to have a lucid dream and decide to have a normal dream (what kind of dream is that?), and to have a normal dream about the idea of lucid dreaming (what kind of dream is that?).

The idea is actual awareness vs dreaming of awareness.  Then asking, is it not possible that this question can be applied to many other scenarios?  Hence the controversy.
~

----------


## Luminous

I know that these are not your personal opinions, I'm just curious about those that have these opinions.  :tongue2:  As I'm one of those who can choose my own dreams (but that doesn't happen all the time), so I have no problem believing others who say they can. Because I know first hand it's possible.  :wink2:  

Also, again speaking from personal experience, I have had both scenarios described happening. I've had a non-lucid dream where I complained to a person about something with my lucid dream, and I often choose to "forget" that I'm lucid dreaming, especially if I'm menally worn out from a hard day.

I bet these people doing this study has never had a lucid dream...  :wink2:

----------


## skysaw

> Lucid Dreaming of a Normal Dream:
> *Falls into sleep* "Hey, now that I am lucid, I am going to have a regular dream." *Follows with a normal sporadic dream that I induced*



In this case you are lucid until you forget that it's a dream. If you induce a dream and forget, you are no longer lucid. If you remember, you have simply used "falling asleep" as a means of changing scenes.





> Normal Dream of a Lucid Dream:
> A sporadic normal dream about the idea of lucid dreaming.



Dreaming _about_ lucid dreaming is not a lucid dream. Only dreaming that you _are_ dreaming.

----------


## Bonsay

> Yes, that is exactly the problem.
> 
> Further, you can dream about being aware and not actually be aware.  Get it?
> ~



Even though I can't see this logically happening, I must agree that there probably is a possibility. There is always a "but" I guess. :tongue2: 
So... I still think the problem here is the way people think, rather than there being an actual anomaly with this LD business.

----------


## O'nus

After reviewing Laberge's journals, again, here are some additional problems with lucid dreaming that I propose:

- There is no control group.  I did not find any study with Laberge that contained a control group.  How can you properly define lucid dreaming if you do not use the same methods in those who are NOT trying to lucid dream?
- Luicd Dream verification is not operationally defined.  In any vague reference, it is when the person moves eyes in a pattern, controls breathing, or some other somatic response.  These are subject to reflexive criticism.  Note that he says lucid dreaming can only occur during REM period and verifies it with eye movement.  RAPID EYE MOVEMENT sleep contains RAPID EYE MOVEMENT.  Hence, he is very likely to have mistakenly read a verification.  Furthermore, breathing changes in non-lucid dreamers quite frequently.  I will try to find a scientific journal article to show this.
- Many of his proof of lucid dreaming is based on correlation.  Anyone who has gone through research methods 101 knows that correlation does not prove causality.  This does not assert that lucid dreaming exists or is caused.
- Then there are the previous thought experiments that I proposed that this research fails to refute.

Laberge Articles:
Lucid Dreaming: Psychophysiological Studies of Consciousness during REM Sleep by Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D.:
http://www.lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html
Physiological Correlates of Luicd Dreaming by Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D.:
http://ft.csa.com/ids70/resolver.php..._2_88&mode=pdf (May not be pubicly available.. I cannot be sure of this right now)

Keep in mind, I do advocate lucid dreaming.  However, I also advocate the scientific endeavour and philosophic discourse which means you must take all skepticism into account to come to a conclusive truth.
~

----------


## O'nus

> In this case you are lucid until you forget that it's a dream. If you induce a dream and forget, you are no longer lucid. If you remember, you have simply used "falling asleep" as a means of changing scenes.
> 
> Dreaming _about_ lucid dreaming is not a lucid dream. Only dreaming that you _are_ dreaming.



No, I mean to have a lucid dream and induce a sporadic dream.  I frequently try to do this.  It feels odd as you are forced into a third perspective and then view random imagery.  It kind of feels like zoning out instead of focusing.  

Furthermore, if you are saying that you cannot do this, then there are limitations to luicd dreaming.  If we cannot have a lucid dream about having a dream, then what implications does this have on the ability to control dreams?

And you encapsulated my point; dreaming about lucid dreaming is not a lucid dream.  The skeptics will argue that this can be applied to ALL proposed/claimed lucid dreams.
~

----------


## Luminous

> After reviewing Laberge's journals, again, here are some additional problems with lucid dreaming that I propose:
> 
> - There is no control group.  I did not find any study with Laberge that contained a control group.  How can you properly define lucid dreaming if you do not use the same methods in those who are NOT trying to lucid dream?
> - Luicd Dream verification is not operationally defined.  In any vague reference, it is when the person moves eyes in a pattern, controls breathing, or some other somatic response.  These are subject to reflexive criticism.  Note that he says lucid dreaming can only occur during REM period and verifies it with eye movement.  RAPID EYE MOVEMENT sleep contains RAPID EYE MOVEMENT.  Hence, he is very likely to have mistakenly read a verification.  Furthermore, breathing changes in non-lucid dreamers quite frequently.  I will try to find a scientific journal article to show this.
> - Many of his proof of lucid dreaming is based on correlation.  Anyone who has gone through research methods 101 knows that correlation does not prove causality.  This does not assert that lucid dreaming exists or is caused.
> - Then there are the previous thought experiments that I proposed that this research fails to refute.
> 
> Laberge Articles:
> Lucid Dreaming: Psychophysiological Studies of Consciousness during REM Sleep by Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D.:
> ...



Well, that's the "problem" with lucid dreaming. How can you prove it? It's not like we can enter each other's dreams and ask if they know they are dreaming.

----------


## O'nus

> Well, that's the "problem" with lucid dreaming. How can you prove it? It's not like we can enter each other's dreams and ask if they know they are dreaming.



Exactly.

Then the following arguement that skeptics make is that even lucid dreams are actually normal dreams about lucidity.
~

----------


## O'nus

> - There is no control group. I did not find any study with Laberge that contained a control group. How can you properly define lucid dreaming if you do not use the same methods in those who are NOT trying to lucid dream?



Note: I was wrong, there are control groups.  However, he does not publish the data from them.  The fact that he mentions it and then ommits will obviously make him suspect to criticism.
~

----------


## Luminous

> Exactly.
> 
> Then the following arguement that skeptics make is that even lucid dreams are actually normal dreams about lucidity.
> ~



And as I said, the skeptics can't possibly ever have had a lucid dream. It's kinda like the famous cave theory, if you've heard about it.  :smiley:  They will just have to take our word for it, or step out of the cave themselves.

----------


## skysaw

> Note: I was wrong, there are control groups.  However, he does not publish the data from them.  The fact that he mentions it and then ommits will obviously make him suspect to criticism.
> ~



EWoLD describes the tests in a fair amount of detail. He also mentions details of the eye movement tests that make it quite clear the movements were pre-determined, and specific to the test.

----------


## O'nus

> And as I said, the skeptics can't possibly ever have had a lucid dream. It's kinda like the famous cave theory, if you've heard about it.  They will just have to take our word for it, or step out of the cave themselves.



Note that this is the same argument many theists use for religious beliefs.  Circular reasoning will not convince any skeptic.

I know what you mean, as I have been lucid dreaming for some time, but even authentic lucid dreaming is subject to questioning as we have shown.
~

----------


## O'nus

> EWoLD describes the tests in a fair amount of detail. He also mentions details of the eye movement tests that make it quite clear the movements were pre-determined, and specific to the test.



This is taken straight from Laberge:

Induction and Verification of Lucidity
"A variety of signals were agree upon, typically two pairs of extremely horizontal eye movements (left, right, left, right - termed LR2) to indicate a state of lucidity and four pairs of the same eye movements (left, right, left, right, left, right, left, right - termed LR4) to denote a waking state.  As all subjects had participated in psychophysiological studies on lucid dreaming before, they were well aware of what characterized a luicd dream:"

Two problems and one I did not think of before until now:
- These eye movements are rapid.  Furthermore, he does not show a control groups patterns of eye movements.  I will try to find the typical movements of eyes to support this.
- If ALL participants are aware of luicd dreaming, does this include possible control groups or control data?
~

----------


## Luminous

> Note that this is the same argument many theists use for religious beliefs.  Circular reasoning will not convince any skeptic.
> 
> I know what you mean, as I have been lucid dreaming for some time, but even authentic lucid dreaming is subject to questioning as we have shown.
> ~



Ah yeah, I'd assume so.

I guess it boils it down to that we would just have to scientifically prove it, but how?

----------


## Bonsay

> Note that this is the same argument many theists use for religious beliefs.  Circular reasoning will not convince any skeptic.
> 
> I know what you mean, as I have been lucid dreaming for some time, but even authentic lucid dreaming is subject to questioning as we have shown.
> ~



But if we decide to "convert" them, we could actually do it, something theists haven't managed yet. Perhaps if we keep waking them up every 10 minutes. That's what gives me LDs every time I try. Oh well...

----------


## O'nus

> Ah yeah, I'd assume so.
> 
> I guess it boils it down to that we would just have to scientifically prove it, but how?



Well, that's the problem; as of now, we can't.

However, if we really wanted to make this interesting - I cannot even prove to you that I am thinking.  I can show you EEG and what not, but that does not prove the existance of my self-consciousness.

Either way, this is the crux of skepticism in regards to lucid dreaming.  Perhaps there are further implications in these studies than we imagine..?  Some people speculate that dreaming is not really being unconscious at all.  Anyone have any relevant articles..?  It looks like I have got a lot of hunting to do.. I will return later..
~

----------


## Robot_Butler

I still don't understand the arguement.  No one is saying that lucid dreams are not still dreams.  Of course you are dreaming of being lucid - you are asleep and dreaming.  

Dreaming and Lucid dreaming are not two different things.  A Lucid dream is a type of dream.  How could anyone argue that  there are not different levels of awareness in dreams?  Or that there are different types of dreams?

I don't see the difference between having a lucid dream, and dreaming you are having a lucid dream.

Do you have a link to any more literature on this debate?  I don't fully understand the arguement.  

It seems like the only base for skepticism is on the most fundamental grounds of whether one has self awareness or not.  This is not a scientific debate. It is a philosophical one.  If it was grounds for debate, then all of science would become suspect.  The same arguement could be made for how we experience our waking life, and whether we are truly aware while awake.

This is hogwash.

----------


## yay

I think I understand what you are saying O'nus.  I think it is possible that we are having a dream of being aware of our dream, but what we feel as choice, could be a choice made by the mind , as in regular dreams, but the dream lets us feel like we made a conscious choice.

I think you think of existence or at least of being able to prove things as I do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as you said about proving that you are breathing, I've thought of that too. I also thought of a paradox , "Nothing can be proven nor disproved. I can prove that by not being able to."  I think that there is no way to be completely certain of anything, there is always a possibility of everything being completely different than we perceive it to be. 

If I had to choose though, I would bet that we are having truly lucid dreams. I think so because I have been able to look at the "dreamscape" as I call it. One day I had a WILD , which makes me believe it even more. It was amazing going from a waking state to a dream so quickly. Being able to move my head in the dream was also amazing.

I like the way you think O'nus  :smiley:

----------


## innerspacecadet

> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> I had a dream the other night that I was lucid and did X activity. 
> 
> Or, before going to sleep, I intend to have a lucid dream and do X action.  However, when I dream, I dream about a lucid dream and do Y action.
> 
> Do you see what I mean..?  It is fully possible to dream about lucid dreams.  However, this does not necessarily mean that true lucid dreams are impossible.  It is simply asserting that you can dream of being in a luicd dream.
> ~



A dream within a dream is still a dream just as much.

A dream about a lucid dream where you don't do what you'd intended to do when you fell asleep is, IMO, still a (low-grade) lucid dream by my definition, because I define a lucid dream as any dream in which you realize you're dreaming, regardless of how full and useful that realization is.

----------


## Kromoh

Even in full wakefulness, our own actions are not conscious: free will does not exist. The explanation that we only "dream we are lucid dreaming" is therefore false, as wakefulness itself is akin to it.

Just a thought  :tongue2:

----------


## O'nus

> Even in full wakefulness, our own actions are not conscious: free will does not exist. The explanation that we only "dream we are lucid dreaming" is therefore false, as wakefulness itself is akin to it.
> 
> Just a thought



Firstly, when you say free will does not exist an we do not make conscious decisions in waking life, I am curious to hear you elaborate on this as that it seems to hold a lot of philosophical content.  I worry that it will lead to Cartesian doubt and, thusly, will lead to Pyrrhonism which will get us nowhere.  We can easily doubt the existance of everything.

Back to everyone else.

The difference between lucid dreams and dreams is this; lucid dreams is attributed as having self-awareness, consciousness, etc. whereas dreams are attributed as being unconscious and uncontrollable.  If you define dreams as the experiences while being asleep, then there is no need to define lucid dreaming because that definition categorises them both and there is no difference then.

If you categorise lucid dreams as dreams, then you also have to be prepared to answer then what truly distinguished lucidity from non-lucidity?  If lucid dreams is the awareness of dreams, and dreams is not having awareness, the arguement goes that you can still dream of having awareness in dreams.  

There are some semantic problems here.  However, here's the fundamental arguement:
- You can dream of anything.  
- Lucid dreams are the cases where you are aware of your dreams and can control your dreams.
- Therefore, you can dream of lucid dreams (cases where you are aware of your dreams and can control your dreams).

Here's the other arguement:
- Lucid dreams are still dreams
- Thus, what is the difference then?  
Here's the response:
- If Dreams = experiences in sleep that we are not 'aware' of or can make conscious decisions in.
- If lucid dreams = dreams then you are saying we are not 'aware' of or can make conscious decisions in our dreams.

What do you think...?
~

----------


## Robot_Butler

I think this arguement misses the main issue that dreams themselves do not exist.  The only reason you can argue that lucid dreams can not be proven in a reliable way, is because dreams themselves can not be proven in a reliable way.

So I would agree that lucid dreams do not exist.  I would also agree that dreams about your family do not exist.  You can never prove the content of someone's dreams.  You can only prove that their body exhibits the outward signs of a dreaming state.

For skeptics to believe that lucid dreams exist, would we need to show a physiological difference between a lucid and non lucid?  If the brain wave patterns were different, or eye movement was different, would that prove their existence?

This seems to miss the whole point of what a lucid dream is.  It is a dream that you experience differently.  Not a dream that is fundamentally different from normal dreams.

----------


## O'nus

> I think this arguement misses the main issue that dreams themselves do not exist. The only reason you can argue that lucid dreams can not be proven in a reliable way, is because dreams themselves can not be proven in a reliable way.
> 
> So I would agree that lucid dreams do not exist. I would also agree that dreams about your family do not exist. You can never prove the content of someone's dreams. You can only prove that their body exhibits the outward signs of a dreaming state.
> 
> For skeptics to believe that lucid dreams exist, would we need to show a physiological difference between a lucid and non lucid? If the brain wave patterns were different, or eye movement was different, would that prove their existence?
> 
> This seems to miss the whole point of what a lucid dream is. It is a dream that you experience differently. Not a dream that is fundamentally different from normal dreams.



How are you defining lucid dreams then?  If it has nothing to do with awareness, then are we not deviating from our original definition of "lucidity"?

Stephen LaBerge attempted to show physiological proof for lucid dreaming - see my above posts in regards to that.

If you assert that dreams do not exist - then you are probably on the same grounds of lucid dream skeptics.
~

----------


## Kromoh

O'nus, I don't understand any of your dissertative terms. All I know is that everything there is follows specific laws, named here as the laws of physics. Every action is the reaction of another action, which is the reaction of another action, and so on. So, the future can be determined, as long as you know the laws of physics (this is just like weather forecasts, but more complex).

Dreams are a category. Dreams aren't necessarily unconscious: that's the point you're missing. Dreams: those things you experience when asleep. They can be either conscious or unconscious.

But then again one must define consciousness. A conscious thought is one that is percieved by the whole brain functions associated to it. You cannot tell someone "I'm hungry" if you are not conscious of it: simply because the parts of the brain responsible for perceiving hunger and for talking are different.

One cannot "be" conscious: even in full wakefulness, many processes in our brain go unnoticed. But a _thought_ can be conscious: it is when you can process that thought with your full mental faculties. Full consciousness over a thought is an extreme though: there are "levels", or amounts, of consciousness over a thought.

One can be dreaming and not realise it is a dream. At the moment that person realises he/she is in a dream, and are able to say that to themselves (therefore using another part of the brain, that of speech), then you can say they are more conscious of their dreaming. (remember full consciousness is an extreme)

Dreams have been proved real by the simple fact that our brain is actiev through the night. If our dream is only a bold thought or a whole scenario is a different thing.

LaBerge could prove the existance of consciousness in sleep (more specifically, in dreams) by communicating to the physical world through moving his eyes. He would never have signaled if he wasn't aware he was dreaming. Was it full consciousness? No, as it is an extreme. Was it _more conscious_ than a regular dream? Yes.

I say the line between a lucid dream and a dream is when you can tell yourself you are dreaming. That doesn't determine full consciousness, but does determine you are more conscious than in a non-lucid dream.

----------


## O'nus

> O'nus, I don't understand any of your dissertative terms. All I know is that everything there is follows specific laws, named here as the laws of physics. Every action is the reaction of another action, which is the reaction of another action, and so on. So, the future can be determined, as long as you know the laws of physics (this is just like weather forecasts, but more complex).
> 
> Dreams are a category. Dreams aren't necessarily unconscious: that's the point you're missing. Dreams: those things you experience when asleep. They can be either conscious or unconscious.
> 
> But then again one must define consciousness. A conscious thought is one that is percieved by the whole brain functions associated to it. You cannot tell someone "I'm hungry" if you are not conscious of it: simply because the parts of the brain responsible for perceiving hunger and for talking are different.
> 
> One cannot "be" conscious: even in full wakefulness, many processes in our brain go unnoticed. But a _thought_ can be conscious: it is when you can process that thought with your full mental faculties. Full consciousness over a thought is an extreme though: there are "levels", or amounts, of consciousness over a thought.
> 
> One can be dreaming and not realise it is a dream. At the moment that person realises he/she is in a dream, and are able to say that to themselves (therefore using another part of the brain, that of speech), then you can say they are more conscious of their dreaming. (remember full consciousness is an extreme)
> ...



Firstly, I maintain that I "understand" all points - I am merely arguing for the skeptics.  I advocate lucidity and its benefits.

Considering what you said - is it not possible to have a dream, with very low consciousness, about having higher consciousness?
~

----------


## skysaw

> There is a lot of controversy over the possibility of lucid dreaming and its benefits.



I think I've finally put my finger on the problem with this thread, and it's the original premise. There simply doesn't seem to be any controversy at all. I've never heard anyone tell me they find the idea implausible.

----------


## Kromoh

> Firstly, I maintain that I "understand" all points - I am merely arguing for the skeptics.  I advocate lucidity and its benefits.
> 
> Considering what you said - is it not possible to have a dream, with very low consciousness, about having higher consciousness?
> ~



Well, as a first and primordial premise: yes it is possible. But for the person to dream that he perceives he is conscious, then I believe it would easily make the person lucid soon afterwards. If the person is dreaming that he is lucid dreaming, he does certainly have some perception that he is in a dream, even if it is low. He knows it is a dream, even if it's not with his full mental faculties.

----------


## O'nus

> I think I've finally put my finger on the problem with this thread, and it's the original premise. There simply doesn't seem to be any controversy at all. I've never heard anyone tell me they find the idea implausible.



Well, I have.  For the sake of discourse, I have been acting as them (or the "devils advocate") Of course we can not expect these people to come to a lucid dreaming message board.
~

----------


## Idolfan

There are still people that don't beleive in lucid dreaming... well then again everyone I know says they don't dream. We, my friends are some lucky people to even know they exist!

----------


## Wildman

> Well, that's the problem; as of now, we can't.
> 
> However, if we really wanted to make this interesting - I cannot even prove to you that I am thinking. I can show you EEG and what not, but that does not prove the existance of my self-consciousness.
> 
> Either way, this is the crux of skepticism in regards to lucid dreaming. Perhaps there are further implications in these studies than we imagine..? Some people speculate that dreaming is not really being unconscious at all. Anyone have any relevant articles..? It looks like I have got a lot of hunting to do.. I will return later..
> ~



I think this is the whole problem it boils down to. I've thought about this problem for a long time, and I'm playing the devil's advocate too, but depending how you look at it it's not immediately obvious that lucid dreaming exists. Think about it, when you're in a regular dream, you're positive that you're fully conscious of yourself and your actions, but you aren't, and only realize it once you awaken.

What O'nus is trying to say is that it can be argued that dreams where we think we're lucid, or conscious that we're dreaming and in control of ourselves, could just be an illusion: we could be dreaming that we're conscious, but that doesn't mean we are. So coming back to what O'nus said, this comes down to asking the question: when we think "I am conscious that I am thinking and I am in control of my actions" does that mean it's true, in real life or in a dream?

Another argument for the skeptics is that people often report acting differently in their lucid dreams, in a way completely different to their real selves. That would mean that the consciousness is only an illusion, and that the subconscious is still in control. (one can counterargue with the different levels of lucidity, but still)

So to put it simply, as far as I understand the argument, it all comes down to one question. Is thinking that we are conscious of our actions sufficient to really have consciousness, or is there something more that is needed? 

I think the general tendency would be to say yes to this question, otherwise we're putting our every day consciousness into question. So if the answer is yes, then lucid dreaming exists in the way it's usually defined, and we are truly conscious of our actions and of the fact the we are dreaming in LDs.

Now I'm starting to ramble, but this could also bring up another interesting idea: can we be conscious of actions, and yet not lucid? i.e. In a dream that has some realism to it, and be in full control of ourselves, but not realize it's a dream because you just think you're high, for example.

More to come on this... but I have to sleep. Hopefully my post isn't too long and boring.

----------


## Torcher

LDs = higher perception of Self = Win. That's why they're so difficult to have...because most of us, including myself, go through our lives much like we would in a regular dream - just responding automatically to queus without any active mental resistance to our situations.

----------


## skysaw

I'm having a little difficulty seeing this contrary point of view. I wonder if this is enough to satisfy those who are having trouble pinning down a definition:

I have had lucid dreams where I was not only aware I was dreaming and in control, but where I was also fully conscious of the conditions of the waking world. For example:

"I am dreaming. This is a lucid dream.""The scene around me is all in my head, as is the image of my own body.""In real life, it is Friday night, October 2nd." I am in my bed lying next to my wife."I had white pizza with artichoke hearts and peppers for dinner last night.""I went to bed at 11:30 pm, and set my alarm for 7:30. I estimate it is about 6:00 right now."I woke up about an hour ago to go to the bathroom."

If one can answer these sorts of questions for themselves, there really can be no argument over what is going on. The only unanswerable is whether or not I am lying about it, but one might as well ask me if I'm lying that I like chocolate milk.

----------


## O'nus

> I'm having a little difficulty seeing this contrary point of view. I wonder if this is enough to satisfy those who are having trouble pinning down a definition:
> 
> I have had lucid dreams where I was not only aware I was dreaming and in control, but where I was also fully conscious of the conditions of the waking world. For example:
> "I am dreaming. This is a lucid dream.""The scene around me is all in my head, as is the image of my own body.""In real life, it is Friday night, October 2nd." I am in my bed lying next to my wife."I had white pizza with artichoke hearts and peppers for dinner last night.""I went to bed at 11:30 pm, and set my alarm for 7:30. I estimate it is about 6:00 right now."I woke up about an hour ago to go to the bathroom."
> If one can answer these sorts of questions for themselves, there really can be no argument over what is going on. The only unanswerable is whether or not I am lying about it, but one might as well ask me if I'm lying that I like chocolate milk.



I don't think this will work.  The majority of points you brought up are recollection - not awareness of environment outside the dreaming experience.  I think, put simply, you can not have awarenss of your external while you are dreaming because then you would be awake and not dreaming.  Your neurological system will either function its sense reception during sleep or waking life.  The production of monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI) is vital to the differences.  When sleeping, MAOI are not produced and, therefore, you cannot receive proper sensory perception of your external evironment.  Residual serotonin levels sporadically cause spurious synaptic firing which invariably produces dreams.

In short - you cannot receive perception of your external environment during sleep.  This is the argument against Laberge because his verification for lucid dreaming are relfexive and left to scrutiny (ie. eye movement patterns during rapid-eye movement sleep... can you see the problem right there?).  

However, of course you can recall memories, but this does not mean that you are aware of your current environment.
~

----------


## italianmonkey

> I think, put simply, you can not have awarenss of your external while you are dreaming because then you would be awake and not dreaming. Your neurological system will either function its sense reception during sleep or waking life. The production of monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI) is vital to the differences. When sleeping, MAOI are not produced and, therefore, you cannot receive proper sensory perception of your external evironment. Residual serotonin levels sporadically cause spurious synaptic firing which invariably produces dreams.
> 
> In short - you cannot receive perception of your external environment during sleep. This is the argument against Laberge because his verification for lucid dreaming are relfexive and left to scrutiny (ie. eye movement patterns during rapid-eye movement sleep... can you see the problem right there?). 
> 
> However, of course you can recall memories, but this does not mean that you are aware of your current environment.
> ~



well, you can (even if most of the time you don't like nor want) receive some info from the waking world. like, during a LD you can still think "i so hope the dogs will shut the hell up, so i can keep sleeping", or "damn, the sun is reaching my eyes, that's why i see all white", or also happens to have the double feeling of your imagined body and the real one on the bed...

those impressions can also (while not precisely) combine with memories: i.e: " i have an exam this morning, have to get up early. There's already ligth, so i'll have little time for this dream. damn!"

...... gosh... am i trying to advcate for LDs recalling the whole collection of failures? ::lol::

----------


## Abra

Sometimes I dream of lucidity, like you say. Dreaming of Y, when I planned on X... These aren't very high quality lucids.

But nonetheless, I still strive to dream of X, and as soon as I do, I plan a new X. This disiplines my mind, so that I constantly prove to myself that I am improving, becoming clearer and clearer.

Could planning X make me dream of a lucid dream of X? Sure it could. Multiple times, consistently? Unlikely.

I want to believe I have sentient thought within my lucid dreams. Even deep into the dream, I ask questions that I would ask in real life. I ask dream characters important things, questions that I would have planned to ask as a dream goal in waking life. I'm sorry if this sounds confusing. Even after I have done X, I can create new goals within the dream, meaningful goals that I could have came up with in waking life. That is when I'm at full lucidity.

----------


## banner88

O'nus, my problem with that viewpoint it that veers from a scientific one into a philosophical debate about the nature of consciousness. For all intents and purposes, though, whether you're dreaming of being lucid or in fact being lucid in the dream has little weight on the outcome. Say, you're an architect desiging a house; you enter a highly realistic lucid dream where you walk around your projected house, look in all the rooms, see it several times with different internal designs, furniture, etc., and you make up your mind about whether it looks good, and with which designs it looks the best. Finally, you wake up and can apply this in real life. Whether you did this "conscious" or whether you dreamed of doing it, the result is identical - you have the memories of the different options of your house. If you fear that your analytical ability is impaired during sleep, you can retrospectively, with your memories, again make up your mind as to which internal design was the best and as to whether the house looks good. An architect can do that with dozens of ideas - the benefit is completely the same whether or not he achieved 'true consciousness' during this experience. 

What really needs to be done is a serious neuroscientific study; most of all, MRI imaging of a person's brain during both dreaming and lucid dreaming and waking state is needed for any kind of reasonable debate on the topic. Or what about WILD's, when your consciousness does not get interrupted? If we can image the brain during the transition from consciousness into the lucid dream, we can exactly map out the regions of the brain which activate or deactivate during this period.

----------


## naikou

> Some assert that lucid dreaming is in fact impossible and that you only dream of lucid dreams. Thus, you are not having authentic lucid dreams but dreaming of luicd dreaming.



Following that line of logic is tantamount to questioning whether or not you are dreaming of being alive. Only someone who hasn't had a lucid dream, or who believes that life itself is a dream would believe something like that.





> In short - you cannot receive perception of your external environment during sleep.



Yes you can. Italianmonkey described the experience well. There are also machines that sense when you go into REM sleep, and send you flashing lights and auditory messages (like, "You're dreaming"). If you couldn't receive external stimuli while you were dreaming, what would be the point of such machines?

----------


## dreamMeUp

> you can not have awarenss of your external while you are dreaming because then you would be awake and not dreaming.



I think you can because I did.

My first LD ever happened as one continuous chain of consciousness from waking state into the dream and out of it.

As I was in the dream I got scared of the whole thing and tried to wake up again which I noticed was kind of hard and I concentrated on perception of my physical tactile senses of me lying in bed which lead me out of the dream into waking up.

I do, however, think that dreaming of being lucid is a reality. It's a kind of low-level lucidity where you are, for example, telling yourself that this is a dream and deliberately do dreamlike things like flying, but you keep adressing DCs as if they were real people. 

As concerns the benefits of LDs: I once had a LD where I met a psychotherapist who told me "all this LDing leads to nothing... you need a conventional dream". He handed me a drink to induce an unconscious dream which I decided I'd try.

The dream I had then was indeed kind of meaningful as it brought back long lost memories of my past.

So, all in all: 

- full consciousness in a dream is as possible or impossible as in waking life
- conventional unconscious dreaming might be more useful at times. Trust your subconscious to come up with this stuff when it's on.

- skeptics don't want to be convinced. It's an idle activity and a waste of time.

----------


## orange_entity

My experience on dreams; normal dreams seem to just pass me by, in lucid dreams its more like being awake in how everything seems to be 'in the moment' and I'm able to exert control over what I want to do (and able to exert control on the dream itself).

As for LDing being just normal dreams considering waking life consciousness is not equal to any other state of consciousness. What about SP? You're alert but unable to move. What about people in long-term comas being conscious,  being "locked in"? 

I can understand why people consider LDing to be just a normal dream with the illusion of consciousness because of the physiology of sleeping (the way the brain/body functions during it would make you think it's impossible or at least hard to tell). If we could find out why we dream in the first place that may help. The other question to dissect is what is consciousness really.

----------


## O'nus

> Following that line of logic is tantamount to questioning whether or not you are dreaming of being alive. Only someone who hasn't had a lucid dream, or who believes that life itself is a dream would believe something like that.
> 
> Yes you can. Italianmonkey described the experience well. There are also machines that sense when you go into REM sleep, and send you flashing lights and auditory messages (like, "You're dreaming"). If you couldn't receive external stimuli while you were dreaming, what would be the point of such machines?



I think we are coming to the true nature of the debate as it has philosphical implications.  We can not truly empirically prove others have dreams of consciousness because, in order to do so, we would have to share consciousness.  Otherwise, there is still room for speculation and philosophical skepticism.  

When I say you cannot receive input from your external, what I intend is that your body will integrate exteranl input but will represent it unconsciously.  Your reticular activation system (RAS) is still idly by listening to your external surroundings, but the rest of you system, as far as sensory reception goes, does not integrate or receive information because monoamine oxidase neurotransmitters are not being produced which convey perceptual images of the external.  As a result, the residiual serotonin levels in your nervous system will ilicit spurious synaptic transmission and project imagery to the cortex.  This results in dreaming and excludes the external periphery.  Only when the RAS exceeds its synaptic threshold will it fire and awaken the cerebrum.
~

----------


## Abra

And what about spontaneous lucids? As in, realizing you are dreaming before you discovered the term "lucid dreaming?" Surely these omit the possibility that lucid dreams are dreaming of becoming lucid, right?

EDIT: Never mind, I think I see what you're getting at. You could still be dreaming that you thought you recognized the dream state, and this dream thought need not spur from the knowledge of the term "lucid dreaming." I was trying to trip you up, but you are too smart for that.

Anyway, can you refer me to a good resource for the physiology of dreaming, as described in the post above me? I am highly interested, but have only learned basic qualities of sleep (brainwave stages, some integral chemicals).

----------


## O'nus

> And what about spontaneous lucids? As in, realizing you are dreaming before you discovered the term "lucid dreaming?" Surely these omit the possibility that lucid dreams are dreaming of becoming lucid, right?
> 
> EDIT: Never mind, I think I see what you're getting at. You could still be dreaming that you thought you recognized the dream state, and this dream thought need not spur from the knowledge of the term "lucid dreaming." I was trying to trip you up, but you are too smart for that.
> 
> Anyway, can you refer me to a good resource for the physiology of dreaming, as described in the post above me? I am highly interested, but have only learned basic qualities of sleep (brainwave stages, some integral chemicals).



Check my physiology of sleep on this websites tutorial section.
~

----------


## skysaw

> When I say you cannot receive input from your external, what I intend is that your body will integrate exteranl input but will represent it unconsciously.  Your reticular activation system (RAS) is still idly by listening to your external surroundings, but the rest of you system, as far as sensory reception goes, does not integrate or receive information because monoamine oxidase neurotransmitters are not being produced which convey perceptual images of the external.  As a result, the residiual serotonin levels in your nervous system will ilicit spurious synaptic transmission and project imagery to the cortex.  This results in dreaming and excludes the external periphery.  Only when the RAS exceeds its synaptic threshold will it fire and awaken the cerebrum.~



Gee, I had no idea that all of this got bundled into the definition of "lucid dreaming." And all this time LaBerge has been telling me it only means that the thought "I know am dreaming" occurs to me during sleep. 

Whether or not you have a high level of consciousness, or are aware of your bodily senses is only a part of the debate of what LDs encompass, not if they exist in the first place. If you want to attach all these other stipulations to it, you're simply redefining the term into oblivion.

----------


## O'nus

> Gee, I had no idea that all of this got bundled into the definition of "lucid dreaming." And all this time LaBerge has been telling me it only means that the thought "I know am dreaming" occurs to me during sleep. 
> 
> Whether or not you have a high level of consciousness, or are aware of your bodily senses is only a part of the debate of what LDs encompass, not if they exist in the first place. If you want to attach all these other stipulations to it, you're simply redefining the term into oblivion.



You are taking what I said out of context.  Please stop trying to straw-man my points.  I was explaining how you cannot receive stimuli from your external environment while unconscious.  (You can 'receive' stimuli, but you do not necessarily process it for the reasons you quoted - which _have nothing to do with lucid dreaming_)

Take into account that I AM NOT a lucid dreaming skeptic.  I am merely pointing it out for others to consider.

You do not like me, do you, skysaw?
~

----------


## skysaw

> You are taking what I said out of context.  Please stop trying to straw-man my points.  I was explaining how you cannot receive stimuli from your external environment while unconscious.  (You can 'receive' stimuli, but you do not necessarily process it for the reasons you quoted - which _have nothing to do with lucid dreaming_)



I'm merely trying to get this back on topic, but perhaps I never really understood what the topic was about? Isn't it about whether or not lucid dreaming is possible? That is what I was addressing. 





> Take into account that I AM NOT a lucid dreaming skeptic.  I am merely pointing it out for others to consider.



Yes, I got that. I'm not trying to convince you it's possible, because obviously you already know for yourself. I'm only trying to point out that anyone who thinks it isn't, simply doesn't have the proper definition for it.





> You do not like me, do you, skysaw?



Wow, that was not expected. I don't know anything about you, Onus. I don't have any reason to believe you're not a nice friendly person. I'm countering your statements with my own observations, not attacking you personally. At least not intentionally.

I have healthy debates with anyone who is up for it, as long as they're constructive. My wife and I occasionally debate over a topic, and I like her pretty darn much.

----------


## O'nus

> I'm merely trying to get this back on topic, but perhaps I never really understood what the topic was about? Isn't it about whether or not lucid dreaming is possible? That is what I was addressing.



I appreciate your diligence.  (Seriously.. that is not sarcasm.  I just realized the text may appear that way.)





> Yes, I got that. I'm not trying to convince you it's possible, because obviously you already know for yourself. I'm only trying to point out that anyone who thinks it isn't, simply doesn't have the proper definition for it.



I think the very definition may be the root of the problem.  It leads to a philosophic problem and skepticism because of this:
Dreams - Where we can experience anything in our unconscious sleep
Lucid dreams - Awareness in our dreams
+ With this in mind, the essential skepticism is that our "lucid dreams" are merely dreams.  

As I said in my very first post, this is still technically a lucid dream, but it is simply the authenticity of the lucidity that is in question.





> Wow, that was not expected. I don't know anything about you, Onus. I don't have any reason to believe you're not a nice friendly person. I'm countering your statements with my own observations, not attacking you personally. At least not intentionally.
> 
> I have healthy debates with anyone who is up for it, as long as they're constructive. My wife and I occasionally debate over a topic, and I like her pretty darn much.



Good, then it is mutual.  I asked because I noticed you are quick to respond to my posts.  Plus, I like to ask personal questions bluntly; it can break barriers very quickly.  
~

----------


## dreamMeUp

> the essential skepticism is that our "lucid dreams" are merely dreams.



well, they are.





> it is simply the authenticity of the lucidity that is in question.



let's turn this whole thing around, for fun...:

How do you prove someone is lucid in waking life? Maybe that would begin to clarify what exactly is meant by consciousness... my suspicion is that for most people (including me) becoming lucid in waking life is as hard a task as becoming fully lucid in a dream.

----------


## O'nus

> well, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> let's turn this whole thing around, for fun...:
> 
> How do you prove someone is lucid in waking life? Maybe that would begin to clarify what exactly is meant by consciousness... my suspicion is that for most people (including me) becoming lucid in waking life is as hard a task as becoming fully lucid in a dream.



Consider Rene Descartes' "Meditations".
~

----------


## dreamMeUp

if you are referring to the Descartes quote "Cogito ergo sum" - that, from my experiences and in my opinion, is wrong in almost too many ways to quickly describe in a format like this one here.

But what would _you personally_ say how to tackle the definition and testing of full consciousness in waking life?

----------


## Wicked

Lucid dreaming IS lucid dreaming. I've experienced things such as remembering exactly where I'm sleeping and what I'm really wearing in reality when in a dream, remembering stuff I did while awake earlier that day, remembering plans for the LD that I made whether weeks ago or just before going to sleep, contemplating whether to stay awake or not because I remembered I need to wake up for one reason or another then  forcefully waking myself up and going to do what I intended, etc. All that is impossible if I "dreamt of lucid dreaming". I also know that I'm not the only one with such experiences.

----------


## O'nus

> if you are referring to the Descartes quote "Cogito ergo sum" - that, from my experiences and in my opinion, is wrong in almost too many ways to quickly describe in a format like this one here.
> 
> But what would _you personally_ say how to tackle the definition and testing of full consciousness in waking life?



No, I am referring to his discourse on how we cannot be sure that we are awake or not.  Descartes was a oneironaut.
~

----------


## dreamMeUp

> No, I am referring to his discourse on how we cannot be sure that we are awake or not.  Descartes was a oneironaut.



wow, that's interesting! I didn't know he was... does he refer to those experiences in his texts?

I will try to outline my views on what defines consciousness (I was hoping to learn about your views, but maybe you are waiting for a little more efforts from my side before you start to type this out?  ::D:  )


I must say that the question wether we are awake or not is, to my mind, not the crucial one.
The question as I see it is: 

In both dreaming and waking states...

- ...how to ascertain for ourselves that we are fully conscious (including the criteria for full consciousness as well as how to check for those criteria)

- ...how to ascertain this state in _communication with_ or _examination of_ someone, i.e. from the outside.

I think the first one is already difficult enough, awake or dreaming. 

I read a good post by someone around here on how he raises his level of lucidity in a dream. These were mostly methods involving concentration on sensual receptions (visual, audio, tactile and other stimuli). 
"Thought" as an activity was not a vital part of the list of things to do.

And it works great for me - _in both waking life and in dreams!
_In my mother tongue, consciousness translates to a combination of "being" and "aware". 
I feel that while the mind is a great problem solving tool for a certain type of problems, it is not identical with my consciousness or who I essentially am.

On the contrary: high rational activity stops me from being aware as its main subjects are the past and the future, evaluating what has been, drawing conclusions for future decisions (for example).

The subject of the consciousness, as I see it, is the present. That's why focusing on sensual perceptions grounds me in the present and therefore raises my notion of being aware (fully conscious).

Now, that is only the view from the inside. How to examine that from the outside I got no clue.

What do you think about the criteria for being fully conscious?
Do you think they are different in waking and dreaming state?

This is really a fascinating discussion. I feel I can learn things from it about myself!

----------


## O'nus

> wow, that's interesting! I didn't know he was... does he refer to those experiences in his texts?



Yes, I cannot recall the exact pages at this moment, but he frequently talks about how "reality checks" done in dreams have the same significance in waking state.





> (I was hoping to learn about your views, but maybe you are waiting for a little more efforts from my side before you start to type this out?  )



Sorry, my views in regards to what..?





> I must say that the question wether we are awake or not is, to my mind, not the crucial one.
> The question as I see it is: 
> 
> In both dreaming and waking states...
> 
> - ...how to ascertain for ourselves that we are fully conscious (including the criteria for full consciousness as well as how to check for those criteria)
> 
> - ...how to ascertain this state in _communication with_ or _examination of_ someone, i.e. from the outside.
> 
> ...



This is the crucial point of the controversy.  

I can relate to you because these are the same grounds that I attain lucidity.  I always look at my hand and go through the senses per finger to try and determine my surroundings.  Often, I need not to use my hand and can instinctively do it (but I worry that it is not the same).

Full consciousness is difficult.  We could argue about it on philosophic grounds, but, for the sake of practicality, I think it best to say when the brain is functioning on beta waves and produces monoamine neurotransmitters.
~

----------


## dreamMeUp

> Sorry, my views in regards to what..?



Ah, sry, I was interested in your views as to wether proving someone is fully conscious is not just as hard in a waking state as in a dreaming state.





> We could argue about it on philosophic grounds, but, for the sake of practicality, I think it best to say when the brain is functioning on beta waves and produces monoamine neurotransmitters.



okay - first of all: you seem to be pretty biochemics savvy and I would like to kindly ask you if you could point me to online resources which can give me as a layman some insight into the significance of those aspects (Wikipedia does the job? Which keywords? Or other resources?) so I can really follow your points.

I am assuming that the mentioned neurotransmitters and beta waves are both part of what might happen while asleep, too?

I can see that it might be more practical to be kind of reducing consciousness on measurable biochemics. The question you (the general you) would have to deal with beforehand, though, is which kind of brain activity patterns are connected with the feeling of being fully conscious (as determined by subjective assumption) and which patterns are connected to the act of, for example, rational problem solving.

Then you would have a reference of patterns which you could apply to various dreaming state brain conditions and thus make a statement as to the probable level of consciousness.

EDIT: I would like to add that if the mentioned data does not show any significant change of patterns (in waking state) with the individual in a state of perceived consciousness on the one hand or in a state of rational reasoning on the other hand (or other defined states of perceived lower level consciousness) then it might indicate that _consciousness as such_ might be a matter of pure imagination *or* you could argue that this change of feelings should manifest somewhere in the body physically, thus making the whole thing a search for the right places to examine.

----------


## O'nus

> Ah, sry, I was interested in your views as to wether proving someone is fully conscious is not just as hard in a waking state as in a dreaming state.



Proving consciousness - this method does not empirically exist yet.  I somehow doubt it ever will unless we find a way to share consciousness between individuals.

I do believe they are as difficult.





> okay - first of all: you seem to be pretty biochemics savvy and I would like to kindly ask you if you could point me to online resources which can give me as a layman some insight into the significance of those aspects (Wikipedia does the job? Which keywords? Or other resources?) so I can really follow your points.
> 
> I am assuming that the mentioned neurotransmitters and beta waves are both part of what might happen while asleep, too?



No.  There is no monoamine neurotransmitter production while asleep.  This is why we dream.





> I can see that it might be more practical to be kind of reducing consciousness on measurable biochemics. The question you (the general you) would have to deal with beforehand, though, is which kind of brain activity patterns are connected with the feeling of being fully conscious (as determined by subjective assumption) and which patterns are connected to the act of, for example, rational problem solving.
> 
> Then you would have a reference of patterns which you could apply to various dreaming state brain conditions and thus make a statement as to the probable level of consciousness.
> 
> EDIT: I would like to add that if the mentioned data does not show any significant change of patterns (in waking state) with the individual in a state of perceived consciousness on the one hand or in a state of rational reasoning on the other hand (or other defined states of perceived lower level consciousness) then it might indicate that _consciousness as such_ might be a matter of pure imagination *or* you could argue that this change of feelings should manifest somewhere in the body physically, thus making the whole thing a search for the right places to examine.



Quite simply, our dreaming state and waking state are rather the exact same except for monoamine neurotransmitter production.  These are pertinant neurotransmitters that facilitate our sensory perception and inihibit memories becoming projected perceptions (ie. when you think of a bear, you do not actually see a bear or think it is real just because you think it.  However, in dreams, you will see a bear).

You can do a quick search for "monoamine neurotransmitters" but here are a list of the most important ones:
- catecholamines (adrenaline)
- amines (tryptamine)
- melatonin
- etc. etc..
~

----------


## ClouD

Heh, interesting thread...

To define lucid dreaming as a dreaming of a dream, we must understand what a dream _is_, regardless of lucidity.

A dream...
I would call it an experience that it witnessed by our consciousness (evidently, us).
That experience, can consist of anything, just as life can.
In that case, then indeed a lucid dream is just the witnessing of events that happen. Regardless of control, it shouldn't make a difference.

If the claim, is that the witness is being witnessed, then it is fallacious, as that is not possible.

The witness cannot witness itself, ever. A few minutes of trying to witness the witnessing, should be sufficient proof... only to discover you are trying to witness the witnessing with the original witness, making it as i said, a fallacy.

It is not possible to prove, that control is false. It can only ever be a theory. As we don't even know in real life that we have control, seeing as there are always unlimited possibilities.

----------


## dreamMeUp

> I would call it an experience that it witnessed by our consciousness



ClouD - okay, but we are already in the middle of discussing what consciousness actually signifies both in a physical and in a mental way. So, is it really witnessed by consciousness?
 :boogie: 

O'nus

thanks for the info and keywords on the neurotransmitters. I will do some reading over the weekend and be back... :;-): 

In the meantime...

- has there ever been an observation of a (waking) state of mind which blocked the emission of these neurotransmitters? Any substances which can do that?

----------


## ClouD

> ClouD - okay, but we are already in the middle of discussing what consciousness actually signifies both in a physical and in a mental way. So, is it really witnessed by consciousness?



Ah. Ok.  :tongue2: 

I think consciousness _is_ the witness.

What defines consciousness?





> www.wisegeek.com - Philosophically, at its most basic level, consciousness may be said to be the process of a thinker focusing the thought on some aspect of existence. This may be external or internal, and may exist in the realm we think of as the subconscious (such as dream states). These experiences are collectively known as qualia, and are the building blocks of the philosophical discussion surrounding consciousness.



Hmm, obviously it is a touchy subject... defining things.
Though, i think it applies well at a general level, in this context.

I think that witnessing, is everything, except for the witness.
The witness, is not just the watcher... but the feeler... the taster... the experiencer of all experiences.

----------


## dreamMeUp

I stumbled over the term "qualia" in your quote which I didn't know yet, but read up on wikipedia.

It actually deals with exactly the problem we are being confronted with...: the unaccountability of personal sensation/perception...

unfortunately, the german version is a bit better than the english version, imo, but here goes anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

----------


## spaceexplorer

> Now please keep in mind that I am simply acting as a discourse catalyst - I do believe in the benefits of lucid dreaming.
> 
> However, for what you said, there is no scientific support for this.  Furthermore, there is truly no way to prove it as of it besides speculation.  This is because any proof will be hearsay and subject to bias, lying, and simply no empirical evidence.
> 
> Consider that these two situations are possible: to have a lucid dream and decide to have a normal dream (what kind of dream is that?), and to have a normal dream about the idea of lucid dreaming (what kind of dream is that?).
> 
> The idea is actual awareness vs dreaming of awareness.  Then asking, is it not possible that this question can be applied to many other scenarios?  Hence the controversy.
> ~



This is an interesting thread, I remember being around 16 and having this same discussion. Odd to be thinking about it again all these years later.


Of course both lucid dreaming and standard dreaming can mimic the behaviours and products of each other but it is not the products of these mindsets that define these states, it is the quality of the awareness behind the behaviours that define them.

This is no different from saying a happy person can behave as if they are sad and a sad person can behave as if they are happy. The behaviour does not define the state, it may help us recognise the state under normal conditions, but if such behaviours are absent or distorted - it does not eliminate the state itself. 

If we confuse the products of states of mind for the state of mind itself, then we create problems such as what has happened here with lucid versus non lucid dreaming.

To me the only difference i see between a lucid and non lucid dream is the quality of the mind interacting with the experience. It is either reflective or reflexive.  Which like happiness or sadness are very subjective experiences.
Still, I doubt there is much debate if the states of happiness or sadness exists?

We already know that reflective and reflexive states occur in the waking state. Is it that unlikely that a dreamer too may also experience reflective states? even if, as it seems, this is a less common occurence than the standard reflexive habitual dream?

Why should it be that humans can experience the huge range of waking emotions in the dreaming world, but not experience reflective awareness?

To me the question is the same as saying: can a humanbeing really be sad in a dream? or is it just an illusion of sadness?

----------


## IndigoGhost

Just to make a point. I Dream that i am lucid dreaming all the time.

----------


## Robot_Butler

> The behaviour does not define the state, it may help us recognise the state under normal conditions, but if such behaviours are absent or distorted - it does not eliminate the state itself.



That is a great point, in general.  One I fully agree with, but always have a hard time putting into words.  I will have to remember to quote you  ::D:

----------


## dreamMeUp

> To me the question is the same as saying: can a human being really be sad in a dream? or is it just an illusion of sadness?



that is a wonderful way to describe it!

----------


## neville

I experience an emotive response in cunjunction with an impression that I am interacting with some matrix that I can observe from a perspective that is only limited by itself. If you do not experience lucid dreams, i would say it is ridiculous for one to waste time trying to disprove an existance when they have not yet sufficiently disproved it to themself. Not that I never manage ridiculisity myself  :tongue2: .

personally I don't think they exist, in the sense that they are not a dream, in the sense that reality is already a dream. A dream within a dream only being one dream. The awake state is something like enlightenment.

At least thats how it comes out when i try to explain myself.





> Lucid dreaming IS lucid dreaming. I've experienced things such as remembering exactly where I'm sleeping and what I'm really wearing in reality when in a dream, remembering stuff I did while awake earlier that day, remembering plans for the LD that I made whether weeks ago or just before going to sleep, contemplating whether to stay awake or not because I remembered I need to wake up for one reason or another then forcefully waking myself up and going to do what I intended, etc. All that is impossible if I "dreamt of lucid dreaming". I also know that I'm not the only one with such experiences.



 I'm very often extremely conscious of the curious sensation of bilocation; I have awareness of being in two places, or even two seperate bodies at once, I know I am present in the dream, and yet I know that I also have a presence sleeping in my bed.

----------


## wwe101

well doesnt wilding give you full awareness in a dream?  becuase your mind has not fallen asleep yet, it stays awake the whole time.

----------


## Arutad

What a strange thread. Anyway, I was thinking of it, trying to understand this point of view and justify it somehow. And came to this:

Lucidity is awareness of being asleep, and when we lose it, we lose control over our dream-actions. We view them as spontaneous and unconscious without lucidity, so there is direct dependence.

Now, how do we manage to proceed behaving consciously while awake, do we always have to remember that we're awake for that, or is there no such dependence while we're awake?

If we need to be always aware of being awake to act consciously, then it directly mirrors how lucidity works in dreams, and then lucidity can be said to be a real thing. If there's no interdependence, then lucidity can be said to be merely a thought or a dream, because real consciousness works without depending on memory of being awake.

Of course it's far from a 100&#37; proof method to say whether consciousness exists in lucid dreams or not, it's still subjective, but better than nothing  :smiley: 

Either way, I can't decide which version is correct. 

What do you think, do we _always_ remember that we're awake? Like, when we watch an engrossing movie, are we still aware of being awake at some level? And do we stop acting consciously if\when we forget?

----------


## The Cusp

I don't think lucid dreaming has much to do with any particularity of consciousness, but more to do with what you are conscious of.

The only real difference between a regular dream and a lucid dream is the number of options you have available to you.  Being aware you are dreaming opens up a whole new range of possiblities, and all it took to achieve that was to focus on the fact that you are in a dream.  

Lucid dreams can be just as limited as regular ones, depending on weather the things you are conscious of overwhelm you, preventing the dreamer from being conscious of other things which would provide new possibilities.

It's not how conscious you are or how much consciousness you have, but what you are conscious of.

----------

