Talk:Lucid dream

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucid dream article.
Article policies
Good article Lucid dream has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
December 11, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
To-do list for Lucid dream: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Priority 3  
    Archive
    Archives
    1. October 2001 – May 2006
    2. May 2006 – May 2007


    Contents

    [edit] Side effects?

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


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

    [edit] A Conflict

    From this article:

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

    From Hobson:

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

    So which is it? How can Hobson "push the understanding of lucid dreaming" if lucid dreaming itself does not even fit into his theoretical models? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.220.36 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    Freud believed that dreams were the result of a hidden desire or wish. The hidden nature of a dream was a central point of Freud's theory. According to Freud the psyche worked to distort or conceal aspects of the dream. Hobson refuted the notion of wish-fulfillment by saying that 1. Dreams were completely random. 2. There was no intentional distortion of the dream or wish on the part of the psyche. Hobson concluded that a change in physiological "state" caused an inability to recall dreams accurately. He believed dreams were primarily a way for the brain to "regenerate." Thus, he opened the door for other scientists, like Stephen LaBerge, to explore further explanations for lucid dreaming. His theory, that dreams were the result of random synapses firing in the brain, did not incorporate lucid dreaming very well. References - http://www.lucidity.com/LD8DFM.html , http://home.nikocity.de/fabianweb/history.html , http://www.lucidity.com/slbbs/index.html

    99.225.4.59 (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Passage of time

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

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

    [edit] Commonness of Lucid Dreaming

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

    And can you read? What part of "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucid dream article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." was difficult to understand? Try e.g. DreamViews for a lucidity messageboard. Sourcejedi 13:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps editor 85.179.31.94 was trying to suggest that such should be included in the article (though, perhaps it is.. I haven't read the entire article). Also keep in mind WP:BITE and WP:FAITH. Morphh (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    Thx, sorry for biting. 1) dream recall is hard, which we do have a section on. 2) the effect of dreaming on the way we think, e.g. critical faculties (look, what a nice purple elephant) and memory (our memory doesn't point out events which go against our real life memory, or which are inconsistent with what happened 5 minutes ago). I tried to get the latter into the introduction a few days ago but it was taken straight out again :-(. Sourcejedi 13:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Achievement Method Edits

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

    [edit] About Occult Project box

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

    I say do it.TheRingess (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    ERASED--Legion fi 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Scientific History

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

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

    [edit] Introduction

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

    Done (mentioned in intro). I have to say I think this is a really challenging article to do an introduction for. I'd love to see some discussion about it. I thought it was also worth attempting to describe the lack of self-awareness in "normal dreams", as I think it explains why a) we aren't lucid when we start dreaming (we've imagined ourself into a dream world and forgotten about anything else) and b) why its so unusual to become lucid in a dream (because our critical facilities are inhibited, and because we don't try to remember the real world, or indeed what happened 5 minutes ago, so we don't see any contradictions). But this means I took out someone elses paragraph which described DILD vs WILD in a nice nontechnical way, to prevent the intro growing too long. Maybe the DILD bit could be fitted in somehow, but I'd have said a short introduction could do without an explicit description of WILD on the basis that it's an "advanced" technique, and is likely to sound slightly daunting or unlikely to a new reader. - Sourcejedi
    Thanks fellow anonymites for spotting and correcting my grammar errors! - [User:Sourcejedi|Sourcejedi]]
    • Intro further updated, more information added. — John Stattic (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

    I would make the following suggestions:

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

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

    • Disagree with reverting current intro.—seems easily readable to me. 142.176.115.196 04:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thx for input. Since there've been lots of changes to the intro now, heres a link to the version I wrote and was proposing reverting to. Sourcejedi

    [edit] Allan Hobson

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

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

    I completely agree with you. I was searching the english wikipedia article about Lucid Dreaming to enhance the french one when I saw this reference to Hobson's work. I was extremely surprised cause Hobson's Activation Synthesis model doesn't describe at all how Lucid Dreaming is possible. Thus I think this assumption is dubious and at least, a reference would be needed. (I'm not a specialist in sleep nor neurobiology though.) - Basilus, user from the french Wiki 21:41, 18 June 2007
    I'm not sure what the issue you guys are having. I'm the one who added all the info about Hobson. I read one of his books, so I looked up the papers to cite it. With regards to LaBerge arguing against Hobson's research, I'll take Hobsons most of the time. But anyway, can you be more clear on the issues you're having? the AS model does describe how LD'n is possible, Hobson draws diagrams that show at what point LD'n occurs in the AS model in his books. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    Thx. My issue is simply that Hobsons hypothesis here contradicts the statement in his own article that he doesn't explain them at all. Sourcejedi 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    That LaBerge article is old, and seems to just be cherry picking some older Hobson articles. In his latest books (and research) Hobson has come around to lucid dreaming, in fact there is a whole chapter where he describes lucid dreaming in his book The Dream Drugstore [2] as well as writing the forward for a recent book about Lucid Dreaming" The Conscious Exploration of Dreaming: Discovering How We Create and Control Our Dreams". When I get a chance I'll post the abstract from that journal article I cited. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 20:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    I was also refering to the old controversy between LaBerge and Hobson and I wasn't aware Hobson came around LD'ing. Now I've just found recent papers by Hobson about the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Here is an excerpt that can be found on the web indeed : "But another cortical region, the dorsolateral prefrontal region, is conspicuously less activated than in waking. This specific deactivation may constitute the physical substrate of the cognitive incapacity of non-lucid dreaming." Hobson, J.A., PSYCHE 11 (5), June 2005. Thank you for having pointed this out. --- Basilus, from the french Wiki. 2 August 2007

    [edit] Checking

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

    You're right, that's a *very* bad idea.
    Here is what I've been doing since I was a child of 5 or so - I could tell time early. Look at a digital clock if one is around. If the number in the 10s minutes is a 6-9 (i.e. 2:71, 4:93) you *must* be dreaming. You can do this with other common objects, too, that look different - just keep saying to yourself that this will clue you in.
    Other things I've used - stuffed aniamls with different colored ears or noses, the sun being a different color, books with strange stuff in them (i.e.: A baseball player whose career stretched 100 years), any little thing like that.
    It was one of a few ways I could fight nghtmares, and I was very effective at it. I think it's something where you have to keep telling yourself it's going to work. I think it's usually easiest to limit yourself to one thing. And, the clock one was what cued me in and helped me to know when it was adream or not.Somebody or his brother 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

    I have been lucid dreaming for a while now and the best way to check whether or not your are dreaming is to plug your nose and try to breath. It is by far the easiest thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.158.30 (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

    I agree with Blades, pain is often very accurate in dreams. The whole "pinch me, i'm dreaming" thing is bogus. You can feel pain in dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.251.196 (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

    In my last DILD, I suddenly thought "Before I get too exited(about something unremembered), I should check if I'm dreaming.". I then tugged my eyelids upwards slightly and concluded that they were closed and that I was dreaming. How common is it to be able to tug ones eyelids upwards and conclude that they are closed?--203.173.168.209 (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] What do skeptics have to say about it?

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

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

    [edit] Induction Methods/Reality Testing

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

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

    Edit by anonymous:

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

    I often try to remember the details of the room im in before i shut my eyes, and if i concentrate on them, and sortof 'forget' my eyes are closed, i get a vivid mental image of the room (not an accurate one of course) that i can then mess around with. I figure this may be easier for some people as it doesnt require any kind of fantastic initial imagery... just what you saw before you closed your eyes. I dunno if im actually entering rem sleep after this, but it seems dream-like enough, and it usually terminates in me waking up the next morning. 32.132.235.46 05:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


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

    [edit] GA review

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

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

    [edit] New Novadreamer?

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

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

    [edit] Lucid dreaming in popular culture

    Forgive me if I'm doing something wrong by editing the talk this way. I just wanted to say that there was a section in this article called Lucid dreaming in popular culture. I found it very informative and entertaining to read about artistic approaches to this phenomenon. Any chance that you'll bring it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.95.126.167 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Lucid Dreaming Wikibook

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

    [edit] Lucid dreams and religion

    There seem to be some religious groups who say that LDs are demonic.. anyone have heard something of that ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.222.133 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Reality testing

    "Being able to move through solid objects like walls with minimal resistance." Yeah, because being able to move through walls with a lot of resistance could readily be mistaken for real life.196.8.104.31 09:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    Well, the brain kind of has to have things made very obvious for it to achive a lucid dream. I remember trying (and failing) to run really fast in a non-lucid dream because I wanted to have a lucid dream and run fastly. It seemed logical that because this wasn't working (my leg movements weren't getting me anywhere) that this wasn't a dream. I think that it is easier for the brain to identify a lucid dream when it gets exactly what it expects. If I had expected a lot of resistance when I did that reality check and had my first intentional lucid dream my brain probably would have said something like "This isn't enough resistance for it to be a dream so this isn't a dream.". I would imagine you have to convince parts of your brain that don't know what a dream is to tell the parts that do know that it's a dream. --203.173.168.209 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


    24.250.186.232 added some information (edit) that is difficult to believe, and it presumably is supported by a website that someone created a couple of days ago. Here is the whois data (I've hidden some information to protect the owner):

    Domain ID:D23306066-LRMS
Domain Name:LUCIDDREAMERS.INFO
Created On:15-Jan-2008 21:27:50 UTC
Last Updated On:15-Jan-2008 21:32:03 UTC
Expiration Date:15-Jan-2009 21:27:50 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com Inc. (R171-LRMS)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:GODA-042231926
Registrant Name:Sherry Han
Registrant Organization:Nerf Druids
Registrant Street1:207 NW [hidden]
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Gainesville
Registrant State/Province:Florida
Registrant Postal Code:32603
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.83[hidden]
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:tsunadepips [at] yahoo.com
Admin ID:GODA-242231926
Admin Name:Sherry Han
Admin Organization:Nerf Druids
Admin Street1:207 NW [hidden]
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Gainesville
Admin State/Province:Florida
Admin Postal Code:32603
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.83[hidden]
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:tsunadepips [at] yahoo.com
Billing ID:GODA-342231926
Billing Name:Sherry Han
Billing Organization:Nerf Druids
Billing Street1:207 NW [hidden]
Billing Street2:
Billing Street3:
Billing City:Gainesville
Billing State/Province:Florida
Billing Postal Code:32603
Billing Country:US
Billing Phone:+1.83[hidden]
Billing Phone Ext.:
Billing FAX:
Billing FAX Ext.:
Billing Email:tsunadepips [at] yahoo.com
Tech ID:GODA-142231926
Tech Name:Sherry Han
Tech Organization:Nerf Druids
Tech Street1:207 NW [hidden]
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Gainesville
Tech State/Province:Florida
Tech Postal Code:32603
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.83[hidden]
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:tsunadepips@yahoo.com
Name Server:NS443.WEBSITEWELCOME.COM
Name Server:NS444.WEBSITEWELCOME.COM
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server:

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

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

    [edit] Sleep paralysis

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

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

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

    I reworded the sentence because of bad grammar. The new sentence may satisfy your concern. Zbrown52 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Video Games and Lucid Dreaming

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

    Link:[4], [5].

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

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

    [edit] Link policy

    Boy, this article almost needs a link policy of it's own.

    I don't like the LucidPedia link - because it's a young site; as an authority it's limited ("My name is Tim Post, I've done talks and workshops on lucid dreaming around some universities in The Netherlands and have produced 10 high-quality YouTube movies"), and... wait, it doesn't even back up the assertion it's trying to prove (that LD's are extremely vivid). It just says dreams generally can be as vivid and real as life itself. Right, that's going.

    Anyway, what I'm trying to say is perhaps we need a couple of examples here or something to show we think is reasonable to cite and what's not. Maybe not everyone would actually read it, but at least we'd have something more article-specific to point at / discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcejedi (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Ancients?

    I remember reading on a historical website about how shamans and other ancient magic-using peoples used to have plants and incense that helped induce lucid dreaming, among other things. Though I can't really remember that well, but it was either saying that the contact with the 'other-world' shamans usually have were really lucid dreams, or if it was saying that they were a combination of hallucinations and lucid dreaming. In any event, is it possible for someone with more, erm...internet expertise to see if they can't find something on shamans and lucid dreaming (perhaps the plants or whatnot that were used to induce it) 24.119.198.92 (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] External Links

    Who ever feels they are the authority of lucid dreams, please verify my link (www.astralsociety.com). Astral Society has been around since the early 1990's and is chock full of relative information, discussion, and community(interviews, downloads, history, courses ect...). Thanks you for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeumus (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Undid 'Perception of time'

    I just undid an unconstructive edit under the 'Perception of time while lucid dreaming' catergory, and I'm not sure what the usual process is when notifying a user with a IP address (67.9.159.79) and I didn't think it was a good idea to post a template on the Talk page of said user because IP addresses tend to change over time. Help, please? Rimmington01 (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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


    [edit] Reality Testing

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

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