Thread: Inherited Lucid Dreaming

Originally Posted by KingYoshi

Lol, there is no ignorance in my post, or any of my posts for that matter. Just a little heads up for you. You just told me that EVERYONE you know has become naturally lucid before. I am sorry, but that is a wild assumption. Plain and simple.





You guys have got to stop using these words... "all, everyone, every, everybody." Didn't you guys learn that in school. Not all children think imaginary things are real. Ever since I first heard the story of Santa Claus I knew it wasn't real. I never believed it once. I was around 3 years old, questioning every hole in the Santa Claus story. I may have been in the minority, but I guarantee there are plenty of other children just like that. Not all children believe that a fat man in a red suit flys reindeer around the world to every single house in a single night. I knew how long it took to get from point A to B. I road in many a car as a child. I have never saw this "magic" everyone spoke of. I was the kid who ruined the thumb removal trick for everybody. I guarantee I wasn't the only one either. I was forced to go to church from an early age, but I was never an actual believer. Even as a child. Just because you are a child doesn't mean you are unintelligent. Surely, you understand this?

For the record, if you use "every," "all," or any variation of these, 99% of the time, you are wrong in your statement.

At what point did I state that children were unintelligent? I have been defending the intelligence and ability to grasp the concepts and understand lucid dreaming by a child the entire time.

As a child, were you not naturally curious and open minded to new concepts and ideas?

I will refrain from saying that all and every, but so far as natural curiosity, I believe it to be there in all children. I've yet to meet a young kid who already knew everything about everything without a hint of curiosity about anything.

Apologies for that: 5 year old. But I don't think we're getting anywhere. I'm saying that as a 30 year old who has worked in the public school system I have a decent grasp of what children are capable of. You don't agree. I don't think everyone under 13 automatically believes everything their parents say. That's where my 'strange relationship' comment came from. Did you really just accept everything your parents said before you were 13? Were you home every day before dark so the strangers wouldn't take you home? Did you never lie cause they told you not to? Were you nice to everyone cause that's the Golden Rule? I can say from MY experience- No. Nor is that what I have seen.

Public school compared to home are two very different things when it comes to learning. For instance (this is just me obviously), public school never, not once engaged my imagination. I wanted to know when I could go home, all day long, every single day. The work I was given was boring to do, and I hated going through the motions of school in general. I associated learning and school with being boring. At home I was creative, I loved to draw, and read, and that was what I brought over into school to aid me getting through the long, boring day. Now I will have to concede to the point of children not believing EVERYTHING that is said by their parents, because even I didn't believe it all, but usually that was because my experience with what I was being told seemed or was different than what I was being told. With zero previous experience, sometimes I would accept the information as valid. That was something I should have approached differently.

Originally Posted by KingYoshi

Hmm, sorry I didn't realize that you and your friends were the authority on genetic inheritance!

Your words, not mine. I never said that, and I have already stated in my previous post what I wrote " doesn't mean its the end all of that side of the discussion but that doesn't mean I am assuming either". If you had bothered to read rather than playing the superiority game you might have known.

Originally Posted by KingYoshi

For the record, it is always a wild assumption when you use the words everyone, all, everybody, etc.

Hello there Mr. Psychologist. Great job making up a whole background to what I wrote purely through semantics! That is some kind of stupid. This isn't Fox News.

Originally Posted by KingYoshi

You are trying to speak for the entire world, while I am using simple logic.

Ah yes, you are using logic and I'm just "speaking for the entire world". Anything else you want to make up? Your ego is astounding.

Everyone, less insulting more debating.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Everyone, less insulting more debating.

Agreed, something wrong when a member of staff comes in just to add a layer of useless criticism, no contribution to the actual topic, and a load of old made up junk. Why does everyone have to be such a hypocrite?

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Everyone, less insulting more debating.

You're a poopie head!!!!

...oh- sorry.

Originally Posted by Loaf

Agreed, something wrong when a member of staff comes in just to add a layer of useless criticism, no contribution to the actual topic, and a load of old made up junk. Why does everyone have to be such a hypocrite?

Loaf.. enough man. Back to the topic.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Loaf.. enough man. Back to the topic.

*snarls*

:c

Originally Posted by Whear

Hello everyone ! First of all, this is my first post here I started reading this forum 2 months ago, but it was only yesterday that I created an account in the eventuality that I'd like to express something. I still didn't experience a "real" lucid dream ( I did however realize I was dreaming 3 times, but the dreams disintegrated faster than I could consciously think of stabilizing them ). I also wasn't consistent in training this skill the whole time because of school and personal problems stressing me too much. However, I've absorbed a lot of information and tried a lot of techniques, so I think I'm on the right track ( theory wise ). Anyway, what I want to share with you is something else. Today, while I was working ( delivering pizzas at Domino's ) an interesting idea came into my mind : since all skills are coded in our genes, could someone who is well trained into lucid dreaming pass this amazing skill to his descendants ? I'm not saying the inheritor should be able to lucid dream without any practice/training, but does he have a great potential at doing it ? Would he do it more naturally if it already has the information in his DNA ? That would mean that we're not only expanding our own limits, but the limits of the whole future humanity ( viewed from a large perspective ) I'd like to hear your opinions about this, especially if you have some knowledge about genetic inheritance ( mine is at most basic ).


Andrei

Going all the way back to the OP...I think you'll find that opinions on the subject vary.

Yeah, sorry about that Jeff. It was inappropriate and uncalled for. I actually tried to delete it right after I sent it, but my computer isn't the most reliable .

We have strayed too far off-topic on this. The problem Loaf, is I am saying it seems quite possible to have genetics influence an ability to lucid dream. As in, genes positively affecting one's mind to determine the difference between the dream state and reality. Do I think that it directly influences lucid dreaming and literally makes people lucid....no, I think that is highly doubtful. I have no solid proof.

You are flat out saying no, it isn't possible. You have no proof.

I simply informed you on the dangers of using the words "everyone, all, everybody, etc." during a debate. Majority of the time, it will only work against you.

@Al3ZAY - I am mixing your argument with the other guys. Just ignore what I said to you, .

All I am saying is if there is no proof that genetics do have influence, it is more reasonable to say it doesn't than it does. Its like saying God must exist because we can't disprove him. I don't believe thats a reasonable approach, but if you disagree well okay that is fine too.

Originally Posted by Loaf

All I am saying is if there is no proof that genetics do have influence, it is more reasonable to say it doesn't than it does. Its like saying God must exist because we can't disprove him. I don't believe thats a reasonable approach, but if you disagree well okay that is fine too.

But by saying that it doesn't have any influence when it possibly could, you're making a definitive statement about a possibility. Can't we simply say that it's a possibility and leave it at that?

I think to me in the end it would be about personality, not genetics. I *believe* that everyone is a natural lucid dreams because *in my experience* any time I've asked "You how sometimes you're dreaming, but you know you're dreaming?" everyone has always said "yeah."

But personality I can see as having an effect. For a loose example, think of drugs. There are some people who just can not relax after taking something like acid, or even smoking weed. The loss of control makes them nervous, they get tense, and they freak out. To me that's a personality trait, not a genetic trait. It might be a learned behavior, but if you took the child of an uptight mother and raised them in a relaxed household I don't think the kid would be uptight.

Now apply that to lucid dreaming. I think having the right personality will make someone learn faster, especially in the begining when you're on that balance-beam of assuming control without destorying your dreamstate.

Originally Posted by AL3ZAY

But by saying that it doesn't have any influence when it possibly could, you're making a definitive statement about a possibility. Can't we simply say that it's a possibility and leave it at that?

...if you're willing to admit that it might not, and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Velzhaed

...if you're willing to admit that it might not, and leave it at that.

And that I am willing to do, haha.

Originally Posted by AL3ZAY

But by saying that it doesn't have any influence when it possibly could, you're making a definitive statement about a possibility. Can't we simply say that it's a possibility and leave it at that?

At this point in time, as far as anyone knows, genetics have no influence. We must accept that. That isn't to say we shouldn't explore it, but we can not go around and start saying it must be true with no evidence. Keep pursuing it, but don't make any claims until you have backing.

Originally Posted by Loaf

All I am saying is if there is no proof that genetics do have influence, it is more reasonable to say it doesn't than it does. Its like saying God must exist because we can't disprove him. I don't believe thats a reasonable approach, but if you disagree well okay that is fine too.

I'm done with this argument. You are comparing a being that lives in the sky and controls everything on earth, to inheriting a genetic trait that could slightly help influence/sway the human mind/brain. Do you not see how irrelevant that is?

Originally Posted by KingYoshi

You are comparing a being that lives in the sky and controls everything on earth, to inheriting a genetic trait that could slightly help influence/sway the human mind/brain. Do you not see how irrelevant that is?

You really are stupid if you can't comprehend an analogy. Pathetic. I tried to be level with you but you obviously aren't civilized enough to return the favour.

The only thing pathetic is how bad your analogy is. Better luck next time, champ .

Originally Posted by KingYoshi

The only thing pathetic is how bad your analogy is. Better luck next time, champ .

Being told its a bad analogy from someone who didn't even understand what it was, then a little condescending ending to try to grab a sense of authority back. Ha ha.
You are the one who looks bad; nobody cares what I say, but people won't take as much exception to a staff member being an idiot.

Oh, I understood quite clearly that you were using a terrible analogy, friend.

Originally Posted by KingYoshi

Oh, I understood quite clearly that you were using a terrible analogy, friend.

You just did it again. Calling me "friend" and adding the winking emote which is only ever used condescendingly is really really transparent. I'm afraid you already dug yourself a hole. A 23 year old man is now getting into a bitch with a 15 year old because he slipped up in an area of basic English after focusing too much on a trivial part of my post. Hope it was worth it.

Hmm, you seem to think that telling your opposition he looks like an idiot and he has dug a hole, actually makes it true? Pretty sure my public standing hasn't changed in the slightest my friend. I'm not exactly sure what you are rambling on about either. Like I said, you are the one who used a horrible analogy. Surely, you don't actually believe a college junior didn't know what an analogy is. Clearly, you are still too young to determine the difference between a relevant analogy and an irrelevant one. This thread is gone off track, so it shall be locked. Have a good day, friend .