Thread: Negative Long Term Effects Of Lucid Dreaming?

Wolffe: "Remember that although you have control, your unconscious mind is the one generating the dream, and is only permitting you to interfere!"

That is pure speculation that you've picked up from other like-minded people. You don't know that.. you can't do.. you're just trotting out someone else's idea.

Oneiro, you've bashed other people's ideas quite frequently, but I have yet to see you post your own.

I thought my stance was crystal clear.. that no-one should assume anything one way or the other about LD... especially if one hasn't had very much LD time..

Everything is pure speculation... manifested in sweeping statements that rely on "knowledge" written down in a book or on the web by someone else who is themselves speculating, posted by those who should get a bit of the empirical under their belts.

Just a thought. . . I was talking to a friend of mine about lucid dreaming and she claims to be a natural at it. . . here's where things get odd. She says she's been doing it since she was a kid but that she doesn't like to. . . ??? That makes no sense to me. She says that when she becomes aware she's dreaming she intentionally tries to lose that awareness so she can get back to normal dreaming. That makes very little sense to me and I was wondering if anyone else thinks she's lying about having done it at all.


Her reasoning is that she shouldn't be awake while dreaming cause she'll miss subconcious clues and such. . .

Her reasoning sounds nonsensical: "..she'll miss subconscious clues and such.."

She'll miss something if she lucid dreams?

Fishy..

Originally Posted by Jimmie

Just a thought. . . I was talking to a friend of mine about lucid dreaming and she claims to be a natural at it. . . here's where things get odd. She says she's been doing it since she was a kid but that she doesn't like to. . . ??? That makes no sense to me. She says that when she becomes aware she's dreaming she intentionally tries to lose that awareness so she can get back to normal dreaming. That makes very little sense to me and I was wondering if anyone else thinks she's lying about having done it at all.
Her reasoning is that she shouldn't be awake while dreaming cause she'll miss subconcious clues and such. . .[/b]

She's not lying. She's also not the only person with this point of view. In fact, the Dream Views main site specifically addresses this issue on the page "What Is Lucid Dreaming?" Here is what the site says:

Misconceptions

Dreams contain messages that are lost with lucid dreaming.

Finally, many people take an intransigent stance against lucid dreaming based on their belief that our dreams are trying to tell us something, and we lose those messages by trying to alter our dreams. That’s a reasonable position to take, however, that idea is not entirely valid. First of all, most people that endeavour to have lucid dreams only have them occasionally—perhaps a few times a month. Some obviously will have them more often (perhaps several times a week or even in a night) but again for the most part, on average, those who attempt lucid dreaming still have more non-lucid dreams than lucid ones. Perhaps even more valid a point is that becoming proficient at lucid dreaming demands excellent dream recall. Thus, while practicing to become lucid in dreams you are also increasing your ability to remember your dreams, which as a by-product will provide you with more memorable dreams to sift through in search of hidden insight. Therefore one can practice lucid dreaming and still attain enough “regular” dreams so that he or she need not worry about losing something important.[/b]

Also, there is another very large school of thought regarding dreams that states that dreams are merely a product of subconscious (or conscious) expectations. People adhering to this theory (which includes the rather famous dream researcher Stephen LaBerge) believe that dreams are not "messages from our subconscious," and that attempting to interpret them as such is pointless. Whether or not you believe that is up to you.

I tend to side with LaBerge, but I do believe that in certain cases there can be some value in interpretting dreams.

Oneiro, you seem to be overlooking the fact my answer isn't based on speculation. I speculated as to the "why?" component of the answer, but the answer itself is obvious. The fact is, people have spent their entire lives lucid dreaming. Several cultures have taken notice of the phenomenon and practiced it intently their entire lives, and NONE have suffered adverse consequences. True enough, some people DO get tired of LDing, but that is not harm, that is only boredom.

If you roll a six-sided die three times, what is the probability you will roll a 6 at least once?[/b]

Everybody understands pretty readily that rolling one die one time gives you a probability of 1/6 that you will roll a 6. So it seems easy, 3 rolls, 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 3/6, or 50/50. But it's not that simple. In each attempt at the stated problem, you actually get three rolls. So, if you get a 6 on the first roll, any 6's on subsequent rolls don't really help you.

There are 216 possible combinations of rolling a six-sided die three times. To find the probability of getting a 6 at least once, it's easier to calculate the probability of not getting a 6 on any of the three rolls, and work from there. The probability you don't get a 6 on the first roll is five out of six, or 5/6. It's the same for all three rolls, so the probability you don't roll a 6 on all three rolls is 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 125/216, which is about 58%. You have only a 42% chance of getting a 6 on at least one roll! You could also make a list of all 216 combinations, 1-1-1, 1-1-2, 1-1-3,...6-6-4, 6-6-5, 6-6-6, and count up the combinations that have at least one six in them, and you'd find there are 91 such combinations. 91/216 is about 42%.

This isn't a math forum, so what does that have to do with this thread? The dice problem seems like a very straightforward question, to which most people would give a quick answer and think nothing more of it. But it's easy to prove that there's more going on, because you can show mathematically the depth in the question. People ask good questions about lucid dreaming, and get a variety of answers and responses. Many answers are well thought out, but some are just gut reactions which are defended by saying "It's obvious." There's an Einstein joke that goes "E=mc2; the rest is left as an exercise for the reader." There is very little in life that is truly obvious, and if it's obvious to you it may not be obvious to someone else. If you say it's obvious and someone asks you to explain your thinking and all you can say is, "It's obvious", maybe it isn't so obvious!

Several cultures have taken notice of the phenomenon and practiced it intently their entire lives, and NONE have suffered adverse consequences.[/b]

Do you really think you can speak for every lucid dreamer in every culture?! You can't know how lucid draming affected every individual! I'm glad people like Oneiro are willing to question the reasoning behind people's responses.

No, you're right. I can't speak for every single individual. But for Jeebus's sake, man! Monks have been intently training themselves to LD for CENTURIES. And YES, I do feel perfectly safe in saying that the vast majority, to the point where I cannot find mention of a single case otherwise, have NEVER experienced negative effects from LDing.

I mean, I whole-heartedly support people questioning reasoning, even (perhaps especially) my own. But there's a point beyond which it is silly.

Here's the deal.
-NOBODY that I've heard of has experienced any harm from LDing. A few have gotten bored with it to the point where they avoid LDs, but NONE, in nearly three years of experience, research and discussion on this forum, have I met somebody who has actually been harmed, physically or psychologically, by LDing. NONE.
-There are existing cultures that have an inherent focus on dreams and lucid dreaming. Of these cultures, there are NO prominent stories, resources or any other type of records suggesting any sort of negative influence. Now, yes, it IS possible that a few people in those cultures had negative experiences, and we didn't hear about them. But at that point it defeats the purpose: Out of THOUSANDS of people who LD their entire life, there are NO records of any permanent or temporary harm being done to somebody by LD'ing. This suggests such a massive majority of people who aren't harmed by LDing that it's rather frivolous to worry about being harmed long term by LDing. That's like avoiding going to the beach for fear you'll be killed by a falling coconut.
-There is NO rational explanation for why LDing would, in ANY way, be harmful to a person. Period.

Oi this is proably wrong like useal but.... when you have a nomral dream dose ur logical side of your brainstop... or like go to sleep... if so wouldnt that mean when your lucid it dosent get to and it might be bad lol?

$20 says im compleatly off lol

Well you said it:

Tsen: "-NOBODY that I've heard of has experienced any harm from LDing. A few have gotten bored with it to the point where they avoid LDs, but NONE, in nearly three years of experience, research and discussion on this forum, have I met somebody who has actually been harmed, physically or psychologically, by LDing. NONE."

Right. For a start, "nearly three years" is nothing. You have hardly any time at all to make the sweeping statements that you do. You are obviously so poorly-read that I'll have to give you examples from right under your nose:

1) You mention "monks" who've been dreaming for ever and who have "never" reported anything dangerous about LD. Well, the only monks I know who practice are Buddhists, and I've heard different stories. There's a book published in the late 70s detailing one of their adherents who had a horrendous "two-year long" LD from which he couldn't wake up. In the dream, he was a patient in a hospital having had half his face blown off by a shell, confined to a bed. He couldn't wake himself up and had to endure for a seeming two years. When he eventually did wake up, he was a complete nervous wreck and was confined to a hospital in reality..

And let's talk a bit more about Buddhists and their practices.. research the word "tulpa" re. Buddhists, and you'll find that, in their belief, this is one of the most dangerous LD manoeuvres possible. There is not one among them who doesn't think that LD is dangerous, so I just don't know how you can make such sweeping statements based on 2-3 years at Dreamviews. Sheesh.

2) You've never read anything about possible psychological damage? You're missing something from right in front of your eyes. Go and check out the "Ways to kill DCs" thread in Dream Control, and then tell me the same. Some of these "people" are obviously sick and LD is only making them worse. The fulfilment of sick fantasies via LD is a very dangerous route to go. Use your eyes.

3) "Toltec Dreamer" by Graham Kane.

I've posted this before. It's a book by a long-term LDer in the Castanedan mould who writes in some detail about the breakdown of his sanity and his fight back, all through his specific way of LD.

Tsen.. before you shoot your mouth off in the future, you should do some proper research before you go putting your foot in it. You don't know much and you should put some serious years in.

Now go and do some reading.

If you think its that abd then why are you even at this site?

Originally Posted by daxamite

Thus far, I have only witnessed one side-effect from doing this. The continuing use of super-powers in non-lucid dreams. While on the surface this does not seem very negative, it does raise a question about long term effects.
[/b]

What if you try practicing Lucid Dreaming without any super powers or dream control. Just stay aware and let the dream go it's course? Anyone think there might be any negative long term effects of just being aware?

Originally Posted by daxamite

2) You've never read anything about possible psychological damage? You're missing something from right in front of your eyes. Go and check out the "Ways to kill DCs" thread in Dream Control, and then tell me the same. Some of these "people" are obviously sick and LD is only making them worse. The fulfilment of sick fantasies via LD is a very dangerous route to go. Use your eyes.
[/b]

I came to to think that these people are training themselves for randomly killing somebody in the street someday.

Lol laugh if they pland to shoot a fire ball out of there hands at the person and kil them and then there just standing there in real lise and epople are like WTF lol

Originally Posted by Oneiro

And let's talk a bit more about Buddhists and their practices.. research the word "tulpa" re. Buddhists, and you'll find that, in their belief, this is one of the most dangerous LD manoeuvres possible. There is not one among them who doesn't think that LD is dangerous, so I just don't know how you can make such sweeping statements based on 2-3 years at Dreamviews. Sheesh.
[/b]

I tried to find something about this, but did not find much more than the WikiPedia article. Could you provide some references?

Tsen, I appreciate your fuller post. I'll say again, that I don't think there's much "danger" at all in lucid dreaming. However, I think there might be some pitfalls that are good for people to know about. When lucid dreaming is a significant part of a people's culture, there are many people working together on it, and watching out for each other. If there are pitfalls, they'll tell each other about them. We don't have that in our society, most people who are ld'ing are doing it largely on their own. DV helps out in that regard; it lets us share our experiences.

Oneiro, I don't see what your problem with the part of the speech you quoted. Anyone who's had 3 or more LDs will have noticed how stubborn their unconscious minds can be. I have tried to many immoral things in my dream, which my mind has completely refused to generate, with the dream characters literally laughing in my face at my failure. I think that's pretty unspeculative, but perhaps I'm misinterpretting your post.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but the first joiner of this site didn't like lucid dreaming and was a natural, do a search and find the first topic

Right. For a start, "nearly three years" is nothing. You have hardly any time at all to make the sweeping statements that you do. You are obviously so poorly-read that I'll have to give you examples from right under your nose[/b]

And you do? Trust me, I've done my homework when it comes to LDing.

1) You mention "monks" who've been dreaming for ever and who have "never" reported anything dangerous about LD. Well, the only monks I know who practice are Buddhists, and I've heard different stories. There's a book published in the late 70s detailing one of their adherents who had a horrendous "two-year long" LD from which he couldn't wake up. In the dream, he was a patient in a hospital having had half his face blown off by a shell, confined to a bed. He couldn't wake himself up and had to endure for a seeming two years. When he eventually did wake up, he was a complete nervous wreck and was confined to a hospital in reality..[/b]

And I already took care of this: I mentioned earlier that even IF one or two had bad experiences, it defeats the purpose because they are a tiny minority.
Further, this just goes to support LDing, not go against it: Either it wasn't an LD, or he had NO control. Either way: If he was a more experienced LDer, he would have been able to stop the dream. The dream itself was NOT engendered by the pursuit of LDing, and lucidity would have provided a way out.

And let's talk a bit more about Buddhists and their practices.. research the word "tulpa" re. Buddhists, and you'll find that, in their belief, this is one of the most dangerous LD manoeuvres possible. There is not one among them who doesn't think that LD is dangerous, so I just don't know how you can make such sweeping statements based on 2-3 years at Dreamviews. Sheesh.[/b]

I don't where you're getting this "dangerous LD manoevres" (sic) from. According to the Wiki page, a tulpa is an object created out of sheer willpower. In real life, its nothing more than fantasy. I don't care who you are, you can't do that in real life. In a lucid dream, that's commonplace. I do it all the time, I just did not know it was called a tulpa. All that is is summoning an object, and doing so can in NO way harm you. I am VERY interested in your claimed "dangerous LD manoevres" because I cannot think of ANYTHING you could do in an LD that could be considered dangerous.

2) You've never read anything about possible psychological damage? You're missing something from right in front of your eyes. Go and check out the "Ways to kill DCs" thread in Dream Control, and then tell me the same. Some of these "people" are obviously sick and LD is only making them worse. The fulfilment of sick fantasies via LD is a very dangerous route to go. Use your eyes.[/b]

So? I agree, that's a pretty sick thing to do in an LD. But how does this make a lucid dream harmful? The lucid dream isn't causing any psychological harm in this case, its the dreamer's decisions that are doing the harm. But still, its no different from playing a violent video game, or experiencing a particularly violent non-lucid dream. Again, the LD is NOT causing any harm.

3) "Toltec Dreamer" by Graham Kane.
I've posted this before. It's a book by a long-term LDer in the Castanedan mould who writes in some detail about the breakdown of his sanity and his fight back, all through his specific way of LD.[/b]

I'll go read the book, I'd never heard of it. But back to my statement of majority: This writer represents an extreme minority. We've had several LDers pass through this site who have been LDing their entire lives and have not experienced anythign of the sort. I've had LDs for about 11 years. For 8, I had them naturally, but eventually that stopped. A few years later, I found this site and started actively seeking LDs and have (so far) been successfully LDing for another three years. I have not, EVER, incurred any damage, harm, or anything even moderately resembling such through LDing.

Tsen.. before you shoot your mouth off in the future, you should do some proper research before you go putting your foot in it. You don't know much and you should put some serious years in.

Now go and do some reading.[/b]

Ditto to you.
You STILL haven't given me a concrete "how". HOW can LDing harm a person? The Buddhist monk you wrote about wasn't harmed by LDing. First off, I'm doubtfull of that entire story and would like to see your reference. Second, IF he incurred that kind of psychological harm, he could have done the same through a non-lucid dream. Being fully lucid would have enabled him to end the dream or free himself.
The killing of DCs was a nasty diversion, but again, it's nothing more than an example of how your choices can damage you psychologically, NOT an example of how a lucid dream can harm you. The dream itself is not harming them, its what they CHOOSE to do. If they CHOSE to do that in real life, it would be just as psychologically harmful. If they CHOSE to do that in a video game, it would be just as harmful. If they had a non-lucid with themes along those lines, it would be just as harmful. The addition of lucidity isn't causing any harm.
Your last reference seems to be a fringe case. He probably had some lingering, submerged psychological conditions BEFORE he started lucid dreaming, and they were only revealed by LDing, not created by it. Still, I will refrain from further speculation until I read the book.

I think I get your point.. LD is not dangerous per se, just some of the people who practice it are.

That's the "Guns aren't dangerous" argument..

Right..