Talk:Dream/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Edit Article, Do Not Remove Sections from Discussion Page

This is a discussion. It's all valid. Let's not get greedy here. R3m0t removed my new sections to this discussion and then accused me of blanking a page when, in actuality, I received notice of an "editing conflict" (two people editing at the same time), and when I saved my version, half the page disappeared. But I restored it, along with my sections R3m0t deleted.

Encyclopedias By Nature Cannot Do Justice to Dreams

This subject is problematic for encyclopedias. Encyclopedias by nature seek consensus knowledge. Dreaming is metaphorically speaking like a Rorschach inklbot for students of the phenomenon, eliciting hundreds of different theories and research methodologies, none of which could be considered consensual. In effect, a lot of really innovative ideas and original research out there will have to be excluded. This is the really meaningful stuff dream enthusiasts are looking for.

Nevertheless this "stub" does serve its purpose in broadcasting this fact to those with a superhuman appetite for an understanding of dreams.

Good Idea?? Why Not Include Small Paragraph That Includes References to Original Research But Labels Them as Such

This is in reference to the above paragraph. One way to solve the problem of original research, which may be productive here given the nature of dreams and the state of dream research in science, is to sideline original and innovative research/ideas about dreams but do so within the main article. And with a header that appropriately titles the paragraph, so consumers know we're dealing with original research and innovative ideas. I say this because original research and innovative ideas is what consumers want from an article on dreams and also because original and innovative research currently comprises the bulk of scholarship in the area of dreams, which has a small-to-nonexistent consensus base. I mean, why would anyone include the embattled sections on Freud and Supernatural, but cast out the very modern empirical and intellectual "Experiographic model" with such extreme prejudice? I agree that I'd like to see the references to the book disappear and perhaps if I can talk to the guy and persuade him to remove the commercial link from his nav bar, we could let his approach stand.

"Critics ... this hypothesis cannot ... this method to be successful."

Do you mean this hypothesis = this method ?

Forgetting

Currently the article suggests that remembering and forgetting dreams is a binary condition, that you either remember a dream or you don't. There are times when I remember snatches of a dream, and there are times where I remember dreams pretty well when I first wake up, but it gets less remembered as the day goes by.

Daydreaming

We need some information about the relationship between dreaming and daydreaming. The latter isn't anlkjmLm.ml kojofig' djxmvkdj fh :Ih kind of former, as the article used to imply. --Larry Sanger

The link between daydreaming and dreaming could be meditation. With practice, you can simply close your eyes (just one technique used to block external stimuli)and focus on a thought long enough to conceive it as reality. During a "dream" these thoughts (or images)are more vivid because you in the sleep state, completely void of external stimuli. -b.young

I am very surprised that so little is written about this topic! Dreaming and dream states are broad and actively researched fields, and also one of my favorite topics of interest. I guess there aren't many psychologists and neuro-scientists frequenting Wikipedia.. -- Rotem Dan 12:33 12 Jun 2003

even today, little is known about the human brain and how it relates to dreaming. -b.young

Really, why is this article so short? There are some FAQs on the net, maybe their authors wouldn't mind if that material were used for Wikipedia? Perhaps this page is also not linked to enough to draw attention to the fact that it is so lacking. Is there a way to request a page to be developed?

What about dreaming in relation to the brain? Doesn't it affect the brain by sorting the thoughts (data)? I don't know for sure, thus I'd like to know. --Thilo Ettelt

Some beleive that dreams are images of your brain's interpretation of different emotions. emotions can actually be triggered by sub-conscious thoughts or ideas--which would explain why we understand some dreams and not others. So, dreams may be a link into the sub-conscious mind. -b.young

I'm afraid there isn't any scientific consensus. Some researchers believe dreams are random firings of neurons, signifying nothing. Others believe it is a distorted form of memory, or the actions of usually unconscious mental processes, etc. Nobody knows for sure. Quadell (talk) 15:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Mammals dreaming

The article states as fact that non-human animals dream. Animals certianly go through REM sleep, and many animals have been known to "whimper" or "twitch" during REM sleep, but I don't think animals actually "dream" (i.e. see themselves in a situation that they interpret as reality.) I would like to see a source that animals dream. If there isn't a source, it should be changed to something like "some researchers believe. . ." Quadell (talk) 14:58, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

That animals dream could never be proven as a fact.I believe animals definately dream, some species more than others.In dogs i have seen the most visible dreaming taking place. I have seen my own dogs bark, run, whimper and wagg their tail in their sleep. They are definately in a real life situation, which takes place in their life daily or they enjoy doing, for example chasing a cat. This could never scientifically be proven as a fact, because animals are unable to communicate like people. Humans can be questioned about their dreams, animals can't. The subject of deams is a very unknown area of science, nobody even really knows the reasons or understands why people dream what they do, never mind understanding animal dreams. Rebecca Miller, Edinburgh, 11/05/05

Why is this page called dreaming instead of dream?

The latter title is simpler, and if you click on "what links here", you find that a lot more pages link directly to dream than to dreaming. Also, one can link to dream from other articles by typing [[dream]]ing, whereas it's more complicated to type [[dreaming | dream]]. I propose moving this page. Michael Hardy 14:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page: "The Dreaming or Dreamtime is an Australian Aboriginal creation myth." I'm sure the Australian Aboriginals would not like their spiritual belief written off as a myth anymore than a Christian or Muslim would.

I don't mind personally, but then, I'm not an aboriginal. Changed to creation belief. --JRM 14:21, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

expand this huge topic!

now! :> Lockeownzj00 10:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does Calton Post to Usenet as "Imperial Leader"

Calton's attack on Wyatt, fair in its characterization of encyclopedic standards but unfair and inaccurate in its inflammatory and derogatory elements, raises an interesting question. Calton's approach is similar to that of a gang based in Usenet (AKA Google Groups). Calton also cites Google Groups as a source of information (har har) on Wyatt, which undercuts his argument in that Usenetters are anonymous and untraceable belligerents, shills, or stakeholders who traffic in flames to help their opinions and investments prevail. One such participant is someone who calls himself Imperial Leader. You can examine his contributions to Usenet here. Calton's User Page features a picture of an imperial leader. Just food for thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 January 2006

Calton's User Page features a picture of an imperial leader. You know, for someone claiming to be trafficking in intellectual ideas, you're either not very bright or not very honest -- either way, it undercuts your credibility, doesn't it? Assuming the former, does the label "Random Picture of the Day" tell you anything about the photo in question? Was it the word "Random" that threw you? Was "of the Day" too confusing a phrase? (Those who actually care about this ludicrous non-issue can check my record of daily swapping the picture -- well, every workday, at least -- or see the gallery I use at User:Calton/Pictures).
Just food for thought. Talk about malnutrition: if your "Imperial Leader" chain of reasoning is an example of the kind of logic you employ in your book, I think your book can be safely discounted. God knows what bizarre theory you would have concocted if Image:Hediedwithafelafelinhishhand.JPG had been displayed on my user page when you looked. --

Calton | Talk 01:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The book is a novel based on actual events. It's a narrative. A collection of academic experiences culled from diaries and other documentation. Secondly, I think it was pretty clear that I was offering the link between Calton and the Usenetter "Imperial Leader" as a possibility (a circumstanial theory in legal terms). Whether that theory is technically correct or not is beside the point. The real point here is that the use of aliases by Usenetters, Wiki admins, and Wiki editors fuels this kind of speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.154.134.201 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 8 January 2006 -- who earlier says he's not "Wyatt Ehrenfels", yet signs that as his name in the very next post. Gotta keep your stories consistent, guy.
I think you are attributing more to me than I deserve. While I'd like to take credit for some of the material with which you credited me, I'd sooner give credit where credit is due -- Wyatt.
"Circumstantial" implies, well, circumstances -- logical inferences based on connected and related evidence. Your chain of inference was one step up from that of the lady who claims David Letterman is sending her coded messages through his TV show. --Calton | Talk 16:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
A circumstantial theory nonetheless. Theories come in all shapes and sizes. Some are dismissed or revised in the face of the facts. Unfortunately, owing to the unavailability of the facts in this matter (there seems to be just enough to raise the question), my theory regarding certain identities and motivations may not be refutable (which puts it in the same class as Freud's theory of dreams).

expand it? The admins are reducing it

They reduced it when they eliminated Wyatt Ehrenfels's Experiographic model and research with cancer patients. Perhaps not enough is known with any scientific certainty about dreams, but it seems to me that we need to be more tolerant of original research in cases of phenomena like this, as long as it is scientific. posted by Curt Jurgens on 22:04 5 January 2006; type ~~~~ to sign your posts

I don't know whether or not Calton is an admin, but anyone can remove a section. "Blanking" sections is generally discouraged — but is of course sometimes appropriate. In this case I agree with Calton: is Wyatt Ehrenfels particularly famous or accepted? For one, all of the references are links to a site fairly devoted to him; this seems to be part of Calton's complaint, calling the research "obscure".
How would Ehrenfels and I differ if I published a website with my own theory of dreams? The answer to that question will be the justification for inclusion. If the difference is that I'm not widely criticized by the academic community, that's not in Ehrenfels' favor.
One of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability — Wikipedia does not give equal weight to fringe opinions. Judging by fireflysun.com's description of itself:

a consortium of concerned citizens, technical and marketing advertisers supporting an initiative to reform Psychology research and education policies and procedures[1]

To me, this is a huge, absurd red flag. --Mgreenbe 00:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The author is a social psychologist whose dissertation addressed dreaming and stress coping in cancer patients. But that's just credentialism. The ideas themselves are well-written and appear to be a compelling extension of Jung's work. There's also a program of research associated with it. BTW, I personally would not discourage anyone from throwing their hat into this particular ring. There is no consensus knowledge of dreams except for the lab work linking sleep stages with brainwaves (which doesn't address dreaming all that well). Dreaming is just one of those areas where we have a few hundred people running around with a few hundred different slant on things and no hard data to garner consensual support.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 January 2006
The author is a social psychologist... Or so he claims. Since the name is a self-admitted pseudonym, there's no way to verify that claim, is there? Nor any way to verify the claims of a dissertation or any research associated with it. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You may be right. Encyclopedias may not be a place for innovative or exploratory ideas. All the really good stuff is out there. Not in here. Sure, I might lean on an encyclopedia like Brittanica for science or historical facts, but for cultural or complex intellectual phenomenon, you have to find the right blogs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 January 2006
Man, you manage to be spectacularly right and wrong simultaneously: encyclopedias are NOT a "place for innovative or exploratory ideas" -- they're digests of the corpus of existing knowledge, and not just for "science or historical facts", but existing cultural or complex intellectual phenomenon. Also, your notion that blogs are the fount of exploring cultural or complex intellectual phenomenon indicates to me why you had to pay someone to publish your book. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Pay someone to publish what book? This is not a vanity press. The author did not pay the publisher for production of the book. I am not attempting to leverage my credential for the purpose of winning what you are attempting to turn into a flame war. I am not the kind of guy -- never have been -- to suggest that my ideas or opinions count any more than yours because I have this or that credential, maturity, or employment history. But I will suggest that ultimately you do not know what my real purpose is in being here. It's likely not what you think. And it sure as hell is not what it appears. But you're likely to glean it if you assume for even if just for the sake of argument that I am the social psychologist and researcher I claim to be. You appear to be working yourself up into a frenzy for something I guarantee you is not worth the time. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.170.207.230 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 January 2006
It's a quirk of mine -- the more transparent the lie, the more insulted I get. Like your bare-faced Pay someone to publish what book? This is not a vanity press: it's not only a vanity press, it's a vanity press with a bad reputation even among other vanity presses. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin -- and am only likely to become one around the time Satan straps on iceskates -- and deleted the section because I stumbled over it while looking up any references in Wikipedia to "Wyatt Ehrenfels" -- as in Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk · contribs) -- for possible vanity edits. For the twisted background that led me here, check out

I looked up "Wyatt Ehrenfels" on Google and Google Groups, to boot, and followed up some of the links, and didn't like what I found. And the bigger absurd red flag about Ehrenfels' book is that "Bedside Books", the publisher, is an imprint of the vanity publisher American Book Publishing Group, so it automatically fails the verifiable/notable/non-fringe source test. --Calton | Talk 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

American Book Publishing Group is as bona fide a publisher as any. With the exeception of six or seven publishing conglomerates, publishers are for the most part small and independent. This reference to ABPG is unfair and inaccurate in that, like other reputable publishers, ABPG researches the credentials of its authors. Moreovver, UNLIKE vanity publishers and even true subsidy presses, ABPG does not require authors to foot the bill for book production. Mgreenbe did have some good insights worth discussion though, and it would be worthwhile to take them up. Dr. Ehrenfels, as a social psychologist, has applied his own trade to his own field, analyzing the organizational structure and culture of academic Psychology, and one does not engage in critical tradition without drawing criticism as well as support. Also as a social psychologist Ehrenfels has taken an interest in the social nature of a small collaborative effort to oppose his high-end institutional critique. The effort is spearheaded by a group which consists of 3 individuals affiliated with Psychology and about 5-6 belligerent Usenetters with no background in Psychology whatsoever. So it looks like group aggregation in cyberspace, a new phenomenon in this age of the Internet, has attracted Ehrenfel attention as well. I can't hold any of that against him. But of course, I admit my bias. I am a staffer and consultant to his organization.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 January 2006
American Book Publishing Group is as bona fide a publisher as any. Complete bull.
  • American Book Publishing Group (formerly Forbes Publishing) aka American-Book.com aka ABPG: Charges fee. This company has plagiarized authors in the past and abused trademarks, notably that of the real Forbes Publishing. Strongly not recommended. A book publisher featuring the following imprints: American Book Publishing*, American Book Classics*, American University Publishing*, Bedside Books*, and Millennial Mind Publishing*. (*Trademarks of American Book Publishing Group). (From Preditors and Editors Guide to Publishers
The fee was less than a hundred dollars when I contracted years ago, and that was simply a commitment fee designed to discourage someone from bolting for another publisher after ABPG committed resources to reviewing the manuscript and contracting editorial and publicity consultants. The fee is a pittance and none of it goes toward book production. Real vanity (or subsidy) presses charge thousands of dollars ($11,000-$20,000) for book production. And even vanity presses are not utterly deplorable. The publishing industry is by necessity a very closed community, with any one publisher receiving thousands of manuscripts a year for which it lacks the manpower and time to review. So authors with a mission-oriented book whose mission is time-sensitive often opt not to wait out the years required to build relationships with agents, cannibalize book chapters for submission to contests, subscribe to industry journals, and simply wait years for a response. I did have a choice between ABPG and Syracuse University Press, but due to the time-sensitive nature of my book's mission, I opted for ABPG's speed and it paid off.
  • Writer Beware has received, and continues to receive, numerous complaints about American Book Publishing (C. Lee Nunn, owner). ABP, which presents itself as a "traditional" publisher, requires its authors to pay a sizable "setup" fee. [emphasis mine] Complaints include non-standard contract terms, non-production of promised e-book editions, non-fulfillment of marketing and publicity promises, repeatedly delayed publication schedules, finished books full of errors, non-payment of royalties, heavy pressure on authors to purchase bulk numbers of their own books, and harassment of those who question or complain. American Book Publishing has been the focus of a police investigation.[emphasis mine] Authors with complaints about American Book Publishing are urged to contact Writer Beware: beware@sfwa.org. from The Science Fiction Writers of America "ALERTS FOR WRITERS" page.
None of this applied to me. My heart goes out to any authors who may have endured genuine hardship, but I am skeptical in that I have participated in some author clubs and chat rooms, and I was a bit surprised by the crass attitudes of a few of these authors, who expected the JK Rowling treatment from their independent or university presses. Truly I just could not relate to some of the complaints that would surface occasionally in these chat rooms. A lot of authors harbor gripes about their publishers, but I got everything I wanted out of my experience and have leveraged my role as author in ways that allowed to expand the pie that is my life. The book has been out for quite some time now and no longer receives marketing support, but in many ways I continue to benefit from having published the book. I highly recommend the experience to any of you who want to commit 1-3 years of your life to writing the Great American novel.
No "bona fide" publisher requires payment to publish a book, and I'd wager that few have been investigated by the police for their actions. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In cases of illegal contracts or violation of contracts, I do believe it would be a matter for the courts and not the cops.
Looks like you're as much a legal expert as you are a psychological one. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Now you wouldn't be flaming me, now would you Calton? You appear vexed by something. I am only addressing questions or concerns regarding my book and my ideas. But it would appear that you not only persist in keeping this dialogue alive, but in keeping it at a personal level. I thought that in acknowledging that original and innovative ideas have no place in an encyclopedia, that you would have thought the matter closed (especially since I helped resolve the matter in your favor). Instead, you seem determined not only to portray my publisher and my work in a false and unflattering light, but when presented courteously with explanations intended to defuse your anxieties regarding my work and my publisher, you seem intent on undermining that as well, even though at this level of depth and detail you do not have the facts to do so. Oh well. I suppose I am not permitted to comment on the law without a jurisprudence degree (and one that can be referenced through Google). I suppose that even as an author, I must be completely mistaken concerning all matters of law pertaining to book publishing. I suppose that I couldn't possibly know anything about anything. There. Now, does this satisfy you?
I'd also be wary of using Google as the end-all source of facts about scholarship. In fact, the very fact admins do use Google to do this tells me the Web itself is still the best open source directory (i.e. better than Wikipedia). Here Wikipedians try to widdle down the Web to its factual, reliable, or reputable components, but John Q. Public is just as adept at this as your average Wiki admin is not a subject matter expert. Maybe this would change once Google, with the help of lawyers and lobbyists, strongarms the publishing world into allowing it to scan the texts in all those libraries. And maybe this would improve if Google jettisoned Usenet, which pollutes the Web with flames and shills from anonymous and untraceable donors. What amazes me is that Google Groups was ever consulted as a source on Wyatt Ehrenfels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 January 2006
Given your attempt to delete Alt.usenet.kooks and hijack Sci.psychology.psychotherapy, it seemed an obvious place to go to find out why.
Ahh, you and I are similar creatures. You began tracking me after you took issue with my recommendation to delete alt.usenet.kooks. Similarly, I began tracking Wikipedia and Wikipedians after I took issue with the alt.usenet.kooks article. So our motivation and standards are similar and yet they remain at odds. You believe my work on dreams does not belong in a generic encyclopedia. At the base of it, I agree with you. But then I belong to the 50 percent or so of the population who thinks it is a travesty to refer to this enterprise as an encylopedia. And it's largely because of articles like alt.usenet.kooks that I feel that way. The science articles on Wikipedia are probably excellent and probably exceed Brittanica because the creators are specific subject matter experts. Now to alt.usenet.kooks. Yes, I believe that article is the bane of Wikipedia. It is only factual and verifiable in that it is reporting what 30-odd news group clubbers believe to be true about some other people. But imagine a similar situation in which someone circulates rumors in Usenet that you are a pedophile or creates a news group that bears your name and appends your name with the extension .die.die.die. Now imagine I create a Wikipedia article that is devoted to reporting this rumor or to the activity in this news group. I could argue that I am simply reporting what other people are saying. But that doesn't make it true. Even worse in the case of adjudicating "kookery" is that such a thing is not even verifiable. None of this merits an article in an encylopedia, and if you wanted to file a defamation lawsuit against me, my claim that I was simply reporting what I found in a news group wouldn't hold up in court. In legal terms I would be culpable as a "secondary publisher." Unlike individuals, Wikipedia as a foundation is not culpable because there is a law (specifically article 230 of the Communications Decency Act) which protects companies like Wikipedia and Google from accountability by assigning them the designation as "conduits" (which in effect makes them public utilities like the telephone company).
You began tracking me after you took issue with my recommendation to delete alt.usenet.kooks I think you need to get a refund on those mind-reading courses you must have taken, since they weren't very effective. The alt.usenet.kooks affair was merely one part of your Wikipedia-wide spam campaign (for onlookers, see the other AfDs for details). And your handwaving about lawsuits and the CDA is essentially incoherent. Quelle surprise. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
As for sci.psychology.psychotherapy, I was the creator of that article. I did not vandalize an existing article.
I was the creator of that article. I did not vandalize an existing article. Hmm, Freudian slip, there. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you mean? Oh yes, I must have been completely unconscious when I admitted to creating that article. How foolish of me.
And based on your activity timeline, one could only wonder what your role in alt.usenet.kooks news group really is. I think your motivation here is just as open to questionning as my own. Ever since I recommended the deletion of that article, I have had many alt.usenet.kooks news group patrons tracking my every move on Wikipedia and the Internet. This all occupies me as a social psychologist interested in analyzing the culture and dynamics of small groups and organizations.
I think your motivation here is just as open to questionning as my own. Hmm, Freudian slip 2. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you mean? Oh yes, damn. Can't believe I said that. My motives are open to question. No one would have ever figured that one out. Just as no one would have figured that anyone's motives are open to question.

Also, Google Scholar (which I didn't mention) gave you -- other than your vanity-published opus -- a big fat goose egg for search results. "Wyatt Ehrenfels site:.edu", which restricts searchs to the educational domain, gave 54 hits -- almost all from various mailing lists, including for the University of Miami journalism school, apparently for the purpose of SEO. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to search under a different name to find my work. Also, I'd be wary of using the practice of investing value in only those things that make headlines or appeal to the lowest common denominator of some committee. This is all peripheral matter. Evidence of a good idea is in the idea itself. This is not to say that I have not received my fair share of acclaim for some of my research, but I am all about the ideas and I invest virtually no time attempting to grab the attention of some reputable eye or accrediting body. I have an excellent job outside the university system, and I have a vocation on the side, and so I have no need to take all that time and dot all the i's and cross all the t's to submit any more papers to trade journals. My career does not require. I do not require it. And most importantly, the independent research / ideas themselves do not require it. I certainly have no interest in doing it just to win you over. If you don't like my ideas, well, either you don't like dreams, you don't have expertise in this area, or you're simply disposed to another point of view. But there's little to nothing that we can say with any certainty or consensus about the function of dreams. We just don't know. And that's why we have room in this piece for Freud and the Supernatural.
You'd have to search under a different name to find my work. Since you won't use that name, it's a priori unverifiable and doesn't belong here. QED. If you want to promote your original research, you'll have to go elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Quite right. That's been my thinking as well. It also occurred to me that any editor and admin whose identity is unknown and who cannot be verified a subject matter expert, is equally questionable as a contributor to an "organized body of knowledge" such as this.
"Wyatt", you've been rumbled: if you want to promote your original research, you'll have to go elsewhere. Your act is not new, and editors here know how to deal with it. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt it for a minute. But again my primary purpose, which is unknown to you, is not to promote my original research.

Closure

Do we all agree that Ehrenfels' research is "fringe"? I think any other conversation should take place on user pages — or elsewhere entirely.

You may be right. Encyclopedias may not be a place for innovative or exploratory ideas. All the really good stuff is out there. Not in here.

...quoth User:67.129.121.254. I agree, the paragraph does not belong in here. Does anyone disagree? --Mgreenbe 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. But bare in mind that this article has some real problems that cannot be solved by subtraction of original and innovative research. Take as an example the Activation Synthesis model of McCarley & Hobson (1977). Sure you'll find references to it in Google Scholar because it's a published article. However, it is beleaguered with all sorts of criticism, and it also argues, and this is not mentioned in the article, that its authors believe dreams are essentially meaningless and that it is not psychologically valuable to analyze them. Vogel (1978) was the first of many to point out that this is an argument by analogy, and since then others have pointed out various flaws in the conclusions. In other words, this encyclopedia article did a good job analogue-mapping the historical landmarks in dream theory / research. Unfortunately, all the "meat" is in between, in critical points of departure from all the seminal research. Even if a subject matter expert like myself were to present a "review article" in place of this one (i.e. a superior article based on a review of the literature rather than blurbs and shallow actuary from Google sleuthing), it would be rejected because it would not quite fit the format of an encyclopedia. The article, as it stands currently, does fit the format, and it is pretty awful -- Wyatt Ehrenfels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.154.134.201 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 8 January 2006 - who was earlier claiming NOT to be "Ehrenfels
...a subject matter expert like myself Guy, you've presented no evidence -- none, zip, zero, nada, nil -- that you are an SME on this or any other subject. The vanity-press publication, in fact, argues against it. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing so quickly. What you describe indeed sounds like a valuable addition; I fully believe that you are able to write an unbiased description of these theories. I'm sure your writing would be very valuable. I hope you aren't turned off Wikipedia by the reaction against "your" theory (it's often hard to believe who's who here, so I apologize for the quotes); any NPOV contribution you can make would be helpful. --Mgreenbe 08:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Mgreenbe. Perhaps I will get around to that. Whatever anyone thinks of my ideas, it think it is abundantly clear that when I commit to an activity, I do so wholeheartedly. When the time comes that I believe I can make such an effort so that it would not be in vein, I will certainly do so.

Reality of Dreams

Fails to mention minoritarian beliefs that dreams are real but waking life is not and delicate gradation of beliefs between this view and the usual. But how should this be approached? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe in the Psychology of Dreams section? At the bottom. <sarcasm>(In small type, preferably.)</sarcasm> – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:12, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Dazed and confused

The intro is good (if far too long for an intro) but the rest of this article is still spotty and highly dubious in places. "Minority views" just has "An extreme minority of individuals and cultures believe dreams to be real and waking life not to be, and there is some gradation of views between this and the common position." This statement is nearly vacuous, especially the last part, and does not back itself up in any way. And what's "Dreams and maya" all about?

I'm just going to slap a factual accuracy tag on it until we've fixed all this, sorry. The factual content is good, if still far too thin, but some of the more spacey elements need to go or be reworded. JRM 15:11, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I Robert.halberg feel the same about this article's structure.

I've removed the sections I considered to be either incomprehensible or useless; the information is, of course, still available in the edit history.[2] If someone can salvage something from it, be my guest. JRM 22:28, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

My thoughts/history on dreaming

Lucid Dreaming

I've for some time been a Lucid dreamer. I'm glad I understand the term better now, because I thought it had a lot more to do with the dream being so far from surreal, that it was hard to shake off.

I must say, if you've never experienced this, you'll want to, and often. And since pain is only imaginary, nothing you can conjure up will hurt you. You'll only think it does. At that point, know your in control, and don't second guess that it'll be any different. Change the landscape, and make it something you want to dream, instead of what ever just happens.

As for what I call "arise on demand", I can wake up from a lucid dream by yawning. It's worked all but maybe once or twice.

it *is* a nice little trick. I've gotten pretty good at fighting off nightmares myself, which is generally the only type of dream I can manage it, but not always. Sometimes I try to fight off the scariness, sometimes I realize it's a nightmare and just wake myself up(as I only seem to have them when I need to wake up and head for the restroom), and sometimes I do both in turn. Maybe related, but other times, I seem to recall having that dream *before*, and so know exactly what's going to happen, and run around like I'm psychic. Oddly, a lot of the times when that happens, once I wake up, I can't really recall having had that dream before, or again after. However, as I almost never remember my dreams(except the nightmares!), it's kinda hard to tell. -Graptor

Multi-level dreaming

And as for something else I don't understand, multi level dreaming (a dream within a dream). On a few occasions I've needed to be up for school, or simply slept through my alarm clock, but my dreams are affected by my real enviornment. One of the funniest ones was when I woke up (but was still dreaming), and mom was calling me to get ready for school, because I was late. (this was years ago) - none the less I started getting ready - then to my confusion, I was being called again, but didn't realise what was going on until moments later. Then I woke up for real.

Another time I had slept for 30 minutes past my alarm, but all throughout my dream I was searching for what I had to guess was a bomb. I don't recall how I finally woke up from that obnoxious state, but I was quite annoyed for the next few hours.

I'm sure there's more, but I think more discusson on this topic will help brainstorm decide what can be improved for the article.

Dreaming and Phantom limbs

theory--every experience like every body part is mapped into the brain. consciousness is directly related to some sort of activation of the map. When a person loses a limb, the mapping is not lost. After a certain age plasticity of the brain lessens and does not update the mappings...required for memory retension in some cases. when stray activations of the map occur where no limb exists any longer, a phantom is felt even though other sensory systems cannot confirm its existance the activation is hard to deny. when the entire sensory array is turned effectively off in cases such as sleep and sensory deprivation experiments...activations of the world map and body map cause a phantom world or dream to occur. There seems to be a system in the brain which takes the sum of the activations at any given moment and weaves a world view into existance...the perceived world. this same mechanism, when fed activations of the map during sleep cycle uses it to manufacture the dream world too. It has been experimentally verified that the brain fills in missing data such as the blind spot found in the upper extremeties of the eye field of vision. the missing data is extrapilated from the surrounding data. during dream cycle, very energetic activations of the map leave a lot of blank spots which are similarily filled in and form the basis for the dream senario. waking activations are causes primarily by sensory data... sleeping activations are often caused by emotional hot spots in the mapping mixed with muted sensory data and because of this they also move in a cascading of associations rather than strictly by cause and effect. The odd qualities of dreams seem perfectly normal while you are dreaming because the cascading is by natural associated ideas. - jiohdi@gmail.com www.geocities.com/jiohdi

Makes alot of sense... there's alot of proof to this theory. for example, 1)people who have lost an extremity as the result of an accident report 'sensation' in the area where the hand or foot used to be. as he explained, the map still exsist in the brain. 2)experiment with an optical illusion website or book and you'll experience the brain filling in the missing(or unknown)data. 3)those that experience sensory deprivation report experiences of hallucination 4)during a dream, your brain may incorporate actual sounds(alarm clock etc) into the dream. 5)people or objects may change during the dream..or you may notice "un-finished" parts like a person's face appears blurred or even blank. 6)emotions usually determine the outcome of a dream, which explains how you may control your dream (lucid dreaming)by controlling your emotions. for example, in the dream, if you beleive an object isn't REAL then the object may "fade" or disappear. a more extreme example would be, when your dream suddenly changes sceniaros altogether. --b.young

WILD and DILD

What the heck does it mean to say that "these terms have mostly fallen into disuse (or likely they never really came into use)"? It's either one or the other, and it's quite ridiculous to see such a sentence in an encyclopedia, and also it easily gives the impression that the terms were invented in the encyclopedia. I don't have the knowledge to make a good edit, but this should certainly be corrected soon. LjL 15:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

My Dream of Reacurrence

Last nite i had the same dream for the second time this month.It is about abandonment,dishonesty, and fornication. I was in the dream like if i were really experiencing what was taking place. In the dream my surroundings consisted of people whom i did not know, but for some reason were in the same house as me. it seemed like there was a slumber party being thrown.Everyone was lying on blankets and pillows looking at a blank screen tv.I watched my partner getting close to an unknown woman.It felt as though the had already knew each other because they had a short exchange of words between them and then he approached her slowly bending down and lying right on top of her.Totally avoiding me;didn't even look my way. Just like the first dream. And then i awoke. This dream leaves me sub-consciously feeling like i might experience a similar event like this in the near future.