Dream Sharing, Do you think it's real?

[StarSeeker]

In any case, I always think that is strange it's said that people didn't believe in lucid dreams before they were measured electronically.

I don't think it is strange. People do that all the time, sometimes even today.

[Moonbeam]

In any case, I always think that is strange it's said that people didn't believe in lucid dreams before they were measured electronically.

I don't think it is strange. People do that all the time, sometimes even today.

For what?  Name some other thing that people didn't believe until it could be measured.  I mean about the mind or body, and that a significant number of people experience.

[johnb]

I can see how a careful scientist -- especially one who had never personally experienced an LD -- might be reticent to make the claim that LDing was a real phenomenon until good experimental evidence (as opposed to purely anecdotal evidence) had been obtained.

[StarSeeker]

In any case, I always think that is strange it's said that people didn't believe in lucid dreams before they were measured electronically.

I don't think it is strange. People do that all the time, sometimes even today.

For what?  Name some other thing that people didn't believe until it could be measured.  I mean about the mind or body, and that a significant number of people experience.

I remember seeing a documentary where a reputed professor from the University of Columbia said that the explanation for a certain phenomenon could not be static electricity because static electricity had only been discovered much later. And he repeated the same thing for radioactivity and something else.
I mean... really? How did people breathe? People seem to need evidence (or at least some "expert" opinion") before accepting things, even if they are blatantly obvious.

[mentalenforcer]

In any case, I always think that is strange it's said that people didn't believe in lucid dreams before they were measured electronically.

I don't think it is strange. People do that all the time, sometimes even today.

For what?  Name some other thing that people didn't believe until it could be measured.  I mean about the mind or body, and that a significant number of people experience.

How about bigfoot sightings?  A lot of people claim to have seen one, which is an event in the mind, yet it is assumed they are mistaken about their experience.

In any case, I always think that is strange it's said that people didn't believe in lucid dreams before they were measured electronically.

I don't think it is strange. People do that all the time, sometimes even today.

For what?  Name some other thing that people didn't believe until it could be measured.  I mean about the mind or body, and that a significant number of people experience.

I remember seeing a documentary where a reputed professor from the University of Columbia said that the explanation for a certain phenomenon could not be static electricity because static electricity had only been discovered much later. And he repeated the same thing for radioactivity and something else.
I mean... really? How did people breathe? People seem to need evidence (or at least some "expert" opinion") before accepting things, even if they are blatantly obvious.

Yes, discovered = created, obviously.    Think of all the fun had by people flying until Newton (or more likely someone much earlier and unknown) ruined the party.

[Moonbeam]

I can see how a careful scientist -- especially one who had never personally experienced an LD -- might be reticent to make the claim that LDing was a real phenomenon until good experimental evidence (as opposed to purely anecdotal evidence) had been obtained.

But about something subjective like a dream experience?  Especially when they are not uncommon; most people know the feeling, even if they haven't tried to induce it.  There is no way to know for sure if other people are even truly conscious (as opposed to a being a zombie who just seems conscious), it's just something that you have to assume based on what you know about yourself, so I don't understand why they would pick that particular aspect of consciousness out as needing anything other than a description by somebody.

It just seems weird to me, that's all.   

I remember seeing a documentary where a reputed professor from the University of Columbia said that the explanation for a certain phenomenon could not be static electricity because static electricity had only been discovered much later. And he repeated the same thing for radioactivity and something else.

That's not what I meant.  I meant something that people experience subjectively, like hallucinations, mental illness, a particular kind of pain, etc.  Anything that you can't measure, but nobody doubts exists, even if they haven't experienced it personally, just because they don't think that the multiple people describing it would all get together and make up something like that.  So some people said that they knew when they were dreaming, and supposedly, the reaction from other people is, "No, you don't."  Don't you find that to be strange? 

I mean... really? How did people breathe? People seem to need evidence (or at least some "expert" opinion") before accepting things, even if they are blatantly obvious.

I don't know what you mean about breathing.

Lol I always think people believe too much without any evidence, not the other way around, but some things just don't need very much evidence to be believed.

How about bigfoot sightings?  A lot of people claim to have seen one, which is an event in the mind, yet it is assumed they are mistaken about their experience.

You don't understand what I'm saying.  Bigfoot, if it exists, is outside the subjective experience of somebody.  I am talking about people picking the particular subjective experience of lucid dreaming and saying that they don't believe in that particular one because it can't be measured.  Lots of things can't be measured, yet we believe that other people subjectively experience them.

It would be like if you had a headache, and if you told somebody who never had one, and they said, "No, you don't have a headache, because I never had one, and I can't measure yours."   And then there were like a hundred people with headaches, and this one person keeps saying, "No, sorry, I don't believe that your heads actually hurt, because it hasn't been measured."  It doesn't make any sense. 

I know to do research on lucid dreams they would need a way to measure them, but not to know whether they are possible or not.  I mean, most people could just to try it to induce it, and they'd have at least one lucid, then they would know.  It's not like claiming something bizarre and unknowable to the vast majority of people. 

[johnb]

I can see how a careful scientist -- especially one who had never personally experienced an LD -- might be reticent to make the claim that LDing was a real phenomenon until good experimental evidence (as opposed to purely anecdotal evidence) had been obtained.

But about something subjective like a dream experience?  Especially when they are not uncommon; most people know the feeling, even if they haven't tried to induce it.  There is no way to know for sure if other people are even truly conscious (as opposed to a being a zombie who just seems conscious), it's just something that you have to assume based on what you know about yourself, so I don't understand why they would pick that particular aspect of consciousness out as needing anything other than a description by somebody.

It just seems weird to me, that's all.

I know what you're saying. But I'm just saying scientists tend to be way more cautious than regular people in pronouncing purported phenomena to be real. Even if they privately think it's probably real, they might not admit they think that until there's some kind of experimental verification. If for no other reason, they don't want to be accused by other scientists of basing their beliefs on mere anecdotal evidence.

BTW, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on anecdotal evidence:

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

[mentalenforcer]

How about bigfoot sightings?  A lot of people claim to have seen one, which is an event in the mind, yet it is assumed they are mistaken about their experience.

You don't understand what I'm saying.  Bigfoot, if it exists, is outside the subjective experience of somebody.  I am talking about people picking the particular subjective experience of lucid dreaming and saying that they don't believe in that particular one because it can't be measured.  Lots of things can't be measured, yet we believe that other people subjectively experience them.

It would be like if you had a headache, and if you told somebody who never had one, and they said, "No, you don't have a headache, because I never had one, and I can't measure yours."   And then there were like a hundred people with headaches, and this one person keeps saying, "No, sorry, I don't believe that your heads actually hurt, because it hasn't been measured."  It doesn't make any sense. 

I know to do research on lucid dreams they would need a way to measure them, but not to know whether they are possible or not.  I mean, most people could just to try it to induce it, and they'd have at least one lucid, then they would know.  It's not like claiming something bizarre and unknowable to the vast majority of people. 

I wasn't talking about the existence of bigfoot.  I was talking about the subjective experience of sighting one.  It could be an accepted thing like a rainbow.  If I say I saw a rainbow, you'd have no way to know if I did.  It's a subjective experience on my part.

I suspect lucid dreaming could be more rare than you think.  Even vivid dreams have proven quite rare among people I have spoken with.

Looking at the issue from the other side, take alien abduction.  When I hear an account of someone waking up unable to move, on a table in a spaceship surrounded by little grey aliens, I think they obviously didn't recognize sleep paralysis.  Since sleep paralysis is something I've experienced, and alien abduction is something I've not.  Yet, in none of my sleep paralysis experiences have there been little grey aliens, a spaceship or a table.  When you think about it, it makes sense that the tiny aliens would want to immobilize a human if they brought it onboard.  So from an open point of view it would make more sense that they were correct in their assessment, and it was an alien abduction.  But I'm a biased interpreter of their story, so I say they're wrong and change their story to fit my experiences.  That's probably what happens when others hear accounts of lucid dreams.

Now that I think about it, I bet this type of bias is at the root of many misunderstandings.  Someone says something someone else lacks the experience to understand, so they change the meaning to fit their experience instead, and ascribe this new meaning as the original intent of the speaker.  No two people share the same experiences, so no one can truly communicate.  It's the Tower of Babel.

[StarSeeker]

Someone says something someone else lacks the experience to understand, so they change the meaning to fit their experience instead, and ascribe this new meaning as the original intent of the speaker.  No two people share the same experiences, so no one can truly communicate.  It's the Tower of Babel.

It reminds me a story of Mullah Nasrudin, which I think it is on LaBerge's book.

[Moonbeam]

I know what you're saying. But I'm just saying scientists tend to be way more cautious than regular people in pronouncing purported phenomena to be real. Even if they privately think it's probably real, they might not admit they think that until there's some kind of experimental verification. If for no other reason, they don't want to be accused by other scientists of basing their beliefs on mere anecdotal evidence.

BTW, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on anecdotal evidence:

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

Recognizing a particular state of consciousness like a lucid dream that a lot of people have, and which can be fairly easily experienced by most people, doesn't seem any different than recognizing that people dream in the first place.  Nobody ever had to show evidence for the existence of non-lucid dreams.  Or for being awake.  Or for being asleep and not dreaming.  Not even scientists.  That would just be silly, right?  So why were lucid dreams considered to be any different than any other common state of consciousness, which is experienced by some or all people?

I know what anecdotal evidence is.  That doesn't apply here.  The description of a subjective experience is not "anecdotal"--it is what it is.  If a person has had a lucid dream, then they know lucid dreaming is possible; that's not anecdotal.  To think that you are conscious in a dream is to be conscious in a dream.  It is not a claim of anything more than the subjective experience itself.  If I say, "I got lucid in a dream last night", that's not anecdotal.  It's just a report of what happened.  But if I say, "Aspirin causes lucid dreaming because I took one and got lucid", that's anecdotal.  See the difference?  

It would be so strange not to believe it in the first place that it seems like anybody who didn't believe it wouldn't be convinced by any evidence.  

I wasn't talking about the existence of bigfoot.  I was talking about the subjective experience of sighting one.  It could be an accepted thing like a rainbow.  If I say I saw a rainbow, you'd have no way to know if I did.  It's a subjective experience on my part.

Right.  If somebody says they saw bigfoot, and we don't think that they are lying, we can believe that they think that they saw bigfoot.  We don't have to believe that bigfoot actually exists outside their head, but we would believe that the experience of thinking that they see bigfoot exists inside their head.  If you say you saw a rainbow, the way I know that you think you saw a rainbow is that you said you saw a rainbow.  No more evidence is needed for me to be pretty sure that you think you saw a rainbow.  

I suspect lucid dreaming could be more rare than you think.  Even vivid dreams have proven quite rare among people I have spoken with.

That may be, but even people who don't dream vividly don't question that other people do, do they?   I can't meditate and have anything happen as far as changing my state of consciousness, but why wouldn't I believe that other people can, if they tell that they do?  Feeling as if you have changed your state of consciousness is the definition of changing your state of consciousness.  

Looking at the issue from the other side, take alien abduction.  When I hear an account of someone waking up unable to move, on a table in a spaceship surrounded by little grey aliens, I think they obviously didn't recognize sleep paralysis.  Since sleep paralysis is something I've experienced, and alien abduction is something I've not.  Yet, in none of my sleep paralysis experiences have there been little grey aliens, a spaceship or a table.  When you think about it, it makes sense that the tiny aliens would want to immobilize a human if they brought it onboard.  So from an open point of view it would make more sense that they were correct in their assessment, and it was an alien abduction.  But I'm a biased interpreter of their story, so I say they're wrong and change their story to fit my experiences.  That's probably what happens when others hear accounts of lucid dreams.

Again, if somebody thinks that they were abducted by aliens, I would believe that they think that.  Of course without more evidence I wouldn't believe that they actually had been abducted by aliens, but that's not how a subjective experience works.  I feel like leave my body and travel into space.  Now, I don't really think I travel into space, and I would expect that if I claimed that, people would require evidence to believe me, but nobody can tell me that it doesn't feel like I do.*  

It's like somebody saying that dreams are not vivid and detailed, you just think that they are.  What does that mean?  Thinking something is vivid and detailed is the definition of being vivid and detailed.

Now that I think about it, I bet this type of bias is at the root of many misunderstandings.  Someone says something someone else lacks the experience to understand, so they change the meaning to fit their experience instead, and ascribe this new meaning as the original intent of the speaker.  No two people share the same experiences, so no one can truly communicate.  It's the Tower of Babel.

People are not so different from each other that they can't understand having similar experiences and similar states of consciousness and similar emotions, obviously.


*P.S.  I realize that a lot of people mistake the feeling of seeing bigfoot or the feeling of getting abducted for aliens or the feeling of traveling into space as bigfoot actually existing or aliens actually abducting them or actually traveling into space, but that's now what we are talking about, and of course more evidence than "feeling it" is needed for those things. 

[mentalenforcer]

I suspect lucid dreaming could be more rare than you think.  Even vivid dreams have proven quite rare among people I have spoken with.

That may be, but even people who don't dream vividly don't question that other people do, do they?   I can't meditate and have anything happen as far as changing my state of consciousness, but why wouldn't I believe that other people can, if they tell that they do?  Feeling as if you have changed your state of consciousness is the definition of changing your state of consciousness.  

When asked how real dreams can seem, I reply that they can seem more real than this world.  This is generally met with anything from skepticism to the sudden fear of realizing they've been talking to a crazy person.

My guess is they think the upper bound on "realness" of dreams must be around 3% that of the waking world.  Since dreams are wholly contained in the waking world, it's impossible for them to feel any more real than the world that contains them.  Perhaps anyone who thinks dreams can is out of touch with the "realness" of the waking world?

*P.S.  I realize that a lot of people mistake the feeling of seeing bigfoot or the feeling of getting abducted for aliens or the feeling of traveling into space as bigfoot actually existing or aliens actually abducting them or actually traveling into space, but that's now what we are talking about, and of course more evidence than "feeling it" is needed for those things. 

Maybe this is the problem.  They accept that we think we have had a lucid dream, but they don't believe lucid dreams are real, and they need evidence to believe that, so they think we are mistaken.

I've found that, to some people, dreams are not experiences.  Dreams are memories they wake with.  So the claim that someone was aware of the fact that they were dreaming *while* they were dreaming is not acceptable.  There is no *while* when it comes to dreams.  There is only a false memory, "later".  People claiming the experience of lucid dreaming must instead have had memories of dreams in which they were "conscious".

I've been told that nobody can dream in color.  Anything we think is color in our dream is merely an assumption we impose upon our dreams.  When we dream of a fire truck, we think it is red based on our experience while awake.  I attempted to disagree, but was accused of having a false perception of color.  Within a week or so, I had a dream of being in a house that was burning.  I looked at the fire and noted its redness.  I was careful to be sure I was perceiving redness rather than interpreting it as such.  Though I wouldn't be able to convince the person who had told me that, I knew for myself from that point on that they were wrong.

The human experience of dreaming varies enough that it's difficult to reach a consensus.

[Moonbeam]

When asked how real dreams can seem, I reply that they can seem more real than this world.  This is generally met with anything from skepticism to the sudden fear of realizing they've been talking to a crazy person.

My guess is they think the upper bound on "realness" of dreams must be around 3% that of the waking world.  Since dreams are wholly contained in the waking world, it's impossible for them to feel any more real than the world that contains them.  Perhaps anyone who thinks dreams can is out of touch with the "realness" of the waking world?

Yes, I know a lot of people don't have much interest in their dreams and for whatever reason don't have memorable dreams.  As adults, anyway; most children have more vivid dreams, and most people can remember that.  So it shouldn't be so difficult for them to imagine somebody else having a dream.

I don't know what you mean by "it's impossible for dreams to feel more real than the world that contains them." 

Maybe this is the problem.  They accept that we think we have had a lucid dream, but they don't believe lucid dreams are real, and they need evidence to believe that, so they think we are mistaken.

But to think that you are aware in a dream is to be aware in a dream. 

I've found that, to some people, dreams are not experiences.  Dreams are memories they wake with.  So the claim that someone was aware of the fact that they were dreaming *while* they were dreaming is not acceptable.  There is no *while* when it comes to dreams.  There is only a false memory, "later".  People claiming the experience of lucid dreaming must instead have had memories of dreams in which they were "conscious".

Why would people go to these strange, illogical lengths to deny such a simple thing?  Obviously, if they believing dreaming actually occurs, lucid or non-lucid, there must be some point at which a person is actually dreaming, and not just having a memory of a dream.  Do they think it all is implanted in their minds at the moment they wake up?  A memory of something that never happened?     

I've been told that nobody can dream in color.  Anything we think is color in our dream is merely an assumption we impose upon our dreams.  When we dream of a fire truck, we think it is red based on our experience while awake.  I attempted to disagree, but was accused of having a false perception of color.  Within a week or so, I had a dream of being in a house that was burning.  I looked at the fire and noted its redness.  I was careful to be sure I was perceiving redness rather than interpreting it as such.  Though I wouldn't be able to convince the person who had told me that, I knew for myself from that point on that they were wrong.

Lol, who are all these people who tell other people things that they have experienced are not actually happening?   

I don't know what the difference between perceiving redness and interpreting redness is.  If a person has the ability to recall dreams, it's easy enough to recall if they are in color or not.

The human experience of dreaming varies enough that it's difficult to reach a consensus.

Reach a consensus about what?  There are lots of things that vary amongst people, yet their existence does not need "consensus" for...whatever you are talking about. 

I actually have never read any accounts of lucid-dream denial, or met anybody who didn't believe me.  They may not be interested, but the idea never seems to cause disbelief.  It's like arguing against solipsism; there is no real argument against it, but there is no point in assuming it either.

Oh well, I don't understand, but it doesn't matter.  Some things don't need to be measured by instruments to know they exist, and dreaming is one of them, lucid or not.

[johnb]

BTW, just found this study showing that the state of the brain is different for lucid dreams than for non-lucid dreams or while awake:

http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=27567

Our findings indicate that when subjects become lucid, they shift their EEG power, especially in the 40-Hz range and especially in frontal regions of the brain. We emphasize that this shift is, in part, a consequence of pre-sleep autosuggestion indicating that REM dream consciousness, which is largely automatic, i.e., spontaneous, involuntary, and intrinsic, is partially subject to volitional force. Our speculative hypothesis is that dream lucidity arises when wake-like frontal lobe activation is associated with REM-like activity in posterior structures.

Makes sense that the frontal lobe would be more highly activated.

Interesting that they had no luck with LD-induction devices. What worked for them was autosuggestion:

An obstacle to experimental studies of lucid dreams is that spontaneous lucidity is quite rare. However, subjects can be trained to become lucid via pre-sleep autosuggestion. Subjects often succeed in becoming lucid when they tell themselves, before going to sleep, to recognize that they are dreaming by noticing the bizarre events of the dream. An experimental advantage is that subjects can signal that they have become lucid by making a sequence of voluntary eye movements.

Of the 6 participants tested, 3 subjects (1 m age 22, 2 f ages 23 years) were each able to become lucid once in the laboratory setting. All 6 subjects were very sensitive to sound and light. This heightened sensitivity may have been a characteristic of our subjects but unrelated to lucid dreaming. As a result of it, however, it was not possible to induce lucidity with dedicated devices, either those which are commercially available (e.g., the REM dreamer), or those of our own design. These devices rely on emitting specific light or sound signals, and only led to arousals and awakenings but not to lucidity in our subjects. The 3 recorded lucid episodes in our sample refer to spontaneous lucid episodes that occurred as a result of autosuggestion but not custom-made induction devices. Two of the participants used ear plugs (Ohropax).

[mentalenforcer]

I don't know what you mean by "it's impossible for dreams to feel more real than the world that contains them."

I was speaking as one of the people who don't believe dreams can be vivid.  They would believe that dreaming is a phenomena contained within the waking world, and assume therefore that dreaming can be only so vivid.  It's like a house in a painting.  Can the house be more real than the painting it is a part of?

Do they think it all is implanted in their minds at the moment they wake up?  A memory of something that never happened?

Yes.  That is what they say they think.

Lol, who are all these people who tell other people things that they have experienced are not actually happening?   

My mother's mother was one.  She would often claim that I couldn't be hungry, because she ate at the same time I did (for one previous meal), and she wasn't hungry.  It didn't matter that she was sitting in a chair napping and I'd been outside running around.  Or that it may have been longer since I ate before that meal.  Or that I may not have been given enough to fill me up at that meal.

I think she was the one who claimed nobody in the world ever dreamed in color.  Oh well.  In my dream with the red fire, I believe it was her house burning down.   

I don't know what the difference between perceiving redness and interpreting redness is.  If a person has the ability to recall dreams, it's easy enough to recall if they are in color or not.

What if the red quality of an apple is part of the plot of the dream?  You could know it is red without needing to see the redness of it.  Later, you might visualize it as being red without ever having seen its redness to begin with.  If you just "know" what color objects are, it doesn't mean they are visually that way.

Reach a consensus about what?

Are dreams text-only or visual?  Are dreams black and white or color?  Are dreams vivid?  Are lucid dreams possible?  Are some dreams prophetic?  Is shared dreaming possible?  Can the waking world be accessed in dreams?  Do dreams exist separate from the waking world?  Is the waking world itself a dream?  Lots of questions.

Oh well, I don't understand, but it doesn't matter.  Some things don't need to be measured by instruments to know they exist, and dreaming is one of them, lucid or not.

For those who have experienced them.  For those who haven't, it's a conspiracy hoax.  Oh, and, good job everyone for keeping up that hoax!  We really got them good with this one!

[mentalenforcer]

Interesting that they had no luck with LD-induction devices. What worked for them was autosuggestion:

That is interesting.  Go, autosuggestion!