Thread: A Treatise on Proof

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Well.. you've both done a nice (poor) job of derailing this thread, but it was originally about "truth"..

So go and read another opinion:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f12/do-you...ing-lds-69018/

No, Oneiro. You have derailed this discussion. And that really sucks, because it was a good one.

I'll respond quickly here to your first post, too, though Sabre's already said it quite clearly:

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Sageous? It's been quite amusing seeing you encounter the "Dreamviews Firewall", trying so hard not to tread on eggshells, tiptoeing around Obi-Waneironought, letting them browbeat (bully) you down, etc etc.

I'm not sure, Oneiro, if you are insulting me, warning me, or defending me (or simply being condescending), so I'll just stick with what makes sense:

Being new here, I had no idea that Oneironaut has moderator powers, and his presence on the thread registered zero on my intimidation scale. Zero. I have no idea why you think that. I never felt myself "tiptoeing." or suffered a browbeating. My apologies were for real (look the word up; in cases like this it is not about being sorry or submissive), and meant to acknowledge or explain my opinions, and not because I feared that I may have offended Oneironaut.

Any careful comments I did make (I assume that was your "walking on eggshells" bit) were meant purely to push forward a conversation that was actually going somewhere, in the hopes that I might learn something new, and that that something important to me might be shared clearly with others here. Nothing I wrote was edited or touched in any other way by the forum moderators, so why should I cower? Come to think of it, it's a damn website on the internet; why should ever be afraid of such a thing in the first place, regardless of what the moderators do? Are you?

This guy was one of a previous (very) few who had the same misgivings that you seem to share:
http://www.dreamviews.com/f12/do-you...ing-lds-69018/
Interesting responses, especially from "Mad Stratter". He/she stayed here all of 2 months!

I'm not quite sure why you sent me to that thread. I was never, even once, discussing misgivings, I was discussing the need for proof as a tool -- proof for something I already know is real, because I proved it to myself.

... You know what? I don't care. All in all this was an excellent conversation on all levels, and you have inexplicably chosen to lower it down to personal nonsense. I have no idea why, and really don't care, save that I really hate to see this thread ended in this soup of tiny talk. Oh, and I already sense that that this forum might not be the place for me (I have that same sense about the Web in general, so don't take offense, DV folks), so there is certainly a chance I won't be here in a few months...my exit, though, will have nothing to do with moderator intimidation.

To help this thread get a topic started again:

Originally Posted by Sageous

I was never, even once, discussing misgivings, I was discussing the need for proof as a tool -- proof for something I already know is real, because I proved it to myself.

What are your experiences, Sageous, with shared dreaming? How concrete do you feel these experiences have been? And on a side note, have you had any experience with time dilation?

Originally Posted by Sabre2552

What are your experiences, Sageous, with shared dreaming? How concrete do you feel these experiences have been? And on a side note, have you had any experience with time dilation?

My experiences with shared dreaming are odd and questionable at best, and in my mind not concrete at all.

Unlike so many people here, I don't find value in visiting others in my dreams -- I get enough exposure to others in waking life; I'm not a herding animal, I suppose. However, I have had so many experiences of "strangers" in my dreams, and even completely alien dream scenarios populated by strangers who acted as if they knew me, that I have over time wondered if my dreams were being invaded by someone or something outside the boundaries of my dreaming mind. Or, perhaps, I was doing the invading inadvertently. The most potent of these invasions is a young woman who appears beside me whenever I approach my highest goals (currently erasing all things in the dream and establishing a "place" that is nothing, save my awareness), and simply maintains a pleasant, un-erasable presence. Very frustrating!

I know that does not fit the definition of dream-sharing here, and the description is decidedly vague, but it's what I have. I even started a stillborn thread about it. Also, for what it's worth I have conjured a few dream-sharing experiences that fit the accepted definition during lesser LD sessions over the years, but they remain utterly unprovable, even to myself. So I guess I've had enough experiences to wonder about dream-sharing, but not nearly enough to firmly believe that the rules of nature as I know them can be so defied.

Time dilation? Here's another twist for you: In my opinion, there is no such thing as time -- it is simply a tool invented by sentient beings to organize their existences. So, since there are no laws of physics at all in a dream, I can't see why time can't simply be tossed aside, and an eternal existence enjoyed in any 20-minute LD.

Though when much younger I had a few of those "man, that dream when on for days" dreams that I'm sure many people wake up from, I was never lucid during them, and later when I thoroughly examined my DJ and my memory, I began to sense that the dreams only "felt" that long, and a normal duration of time really passed. Also, though I never succeeded in erasing time from my dream in terms of defying it by doing something very long-term in one dream (for instance, I once wanted to write an entire novel in a dream), I do have a sense that it can be done, subjectively, because I think time in dreams can potentially be ignored.

There is a long thread on time dilation here somewhere, and much conversation seems to center on the brain, and how much activity it can produce in a given physical time frame. That the brain must function during a dream, and that a one-year time-dilated dream theoretically forces the brain to generate a year's worth of synaptic activity and a year's worth of experience, perceptions, memories, and even settings in a matter of minutes seems absurd on its face, and it is a good argument against time dilation -- but only if time is an actual physical thing, and not a tool of man's making that can be set aside during an LD.

Of course, both of these activities defy proof very effectively, especially to the outside world. Because of this, I believe it is very important that the dreamer who thinks he experienced them considers that experience very carefully before deciding they were the real thing.

Sageous? Go away and do some reading (about 20-25 years) and then come back and try and pose..

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Sageous? Go away and do some reading (about 20-25 years) and then come back and try and pose..

Nice.

So that's all you have? Empty insults that betray your age, anger, and ignorance? Pathetic.

Well, Oneiro, you've shown us all (once again, I'm sure) your true colors, and they are dull indeed. I don't know you, and have no idea why you've chosen to simply attack people rather than actually discuss things, but I suppose that's your problem. I will not waste another second on this.

P.S. And thanks again for shredding a thoughtful conversation. Very nice indeed.

Sabre,

Thinking about that novel I never wrote in dream time led me to consider a simple (though not easy) proof for time dilation: write a song. Give it several verses, so it is too complex to accidentally "make up" on the fly upon waking. Make sure it's truly original, but don't worry about how good it is. Then rehearse it and rehearse it until you know it by heart. This process should take many hours in the waking world, if not days. So, if you manage to do it in one dream session, you may have dilated time to do so, and with the finished song provided concrete proof (at least for yourself) that it happened.

If you don't like writing songs, then choose another activity where the "product" of several hours or days of work can be brought back to the waking world: Write a long poem, design a video game, write and memorize a speech; perhaps if you are athletic, perfect one thing that needs work (though physical things like this are a little harder to bring across because you also have to convince your body that it knows how to do them -- same with playing music). I think you get the point though; seems that there is a way to prove to yourself, beyond being sure it happened, that time dilation could exist.

I'm a bit late to the party here, but I'm going to throw my opinion in about what I perceive to be the original topic of discussion (before all the stuff about shared dreaming and the nature of objective empiricism came in) and that's the question of how we can verify individual lucid dream experiences.

I, almost violently, reject the notion of false (fake, simulated, pseudo, any other of the names applied to the phenomena) lucidity. How can I know I am dreaming, and yet not know at all. It's simply a contradiction of terms. If I reality check, what possible conclusion can I come to other than that I am dreaming? I might not have full control, or even remember my lucid dream goal, but I couldn't deny that I was lucid. Equally, I often am lucid from the outset of a dream with no need to reality check, I just know I am dreaming as surely as I know that the Earth is a globe, or that the sky is blue.

The issue that we encounter is that lucidity is generally seen as a value that is either discrete (lucidity can only be 'on' or 'off') or as a continuity (lucidity can be given a range of values from 1-10, say). I believe that lucidity is actually closer to a spectrum, there are a number of qualities that can be ascribed to lucidity, or a Deirdre Barret calls it, 'corollaries', to determine the lucidity of a dream experience we can measure it against these corollaries:
1. Knowing that you are dreaming (amazingly enough)
2. Knowing that dream objects will disappear (remember O's daughter's dream of the shell on the beach?)
3. Knowing that physical laws need not apply
4. Clear memory of waking life

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Awareness and reasoning:
While dream control and dream awareness are correlated, neither requires the other—LaBerge has found dreams that exhibit one clearly without the capacity for the other; also, in some dreams where the dreamer is lucid and aware they could exercise control, they choose simply to observe.[2] In 1992, a study by Deirdre Barrett examined whether lucid dreams contained four "corollaries" of lucidity: knowing that one dreams, that objects will disappear after waking, that physical laws need not apply, and having clear memory of the waking world, and found less than a quarter of lucidity accounts exhibited all four. A related and reciprocal category of dreams that are lucid in terms of some of these four corollaries, but miss the realization that "I'm dreaming," were also reported. Scores on these corollaries and correctly identifying the experience as a dream increased with lucidity experience.[19] In a later study in Barrett's book, The Committee of Sleep,[20] she describes how some experienced lucid dreamers have learned to remember specific practical goals such as artists looking for inspiration seeking a show of their own work once they become lucid or computer programmers looking for a screen with their desired code. However, most of these dreamers had many experiences of failing to recall waking objectives before gaining this level of control.

Better late than never, Ctharlhie; thanks for revisiting and briefly reviving this thread!

At the risk of eliciting a violent reaction (please don't hurt yourself, or others!), why can't there be false lucids? I'm sure that I have them regularly. I think you might have missed a major condition of this 'treatise,' Ctharlhie: The work of proving is done after waking, and not during the dream. I haven't read this thread in months, so you might be more familiar with the material, but I'm pretty sure I at least confirmed that somewhere. If not:

Of course you can prove to yourself during the dream that you are lucid, with RC's, memory, and certain self-awareness confirmations like those four corollaries. To say otherwise would be absurd. Not only that, but a dream during which you clearly confirmed that you you were lucid will surely fill both of the initial criteria for proof I listed in the OP (even though I believe I had to walk back #2 somewhere in the thread). In other words, yeah, if you can prove that you're lucid during the dream, you'll likely accurately remember it as a LD upon waking.

No, what I mean by a false lucid is a non-lucid dream about being lucid -- where your dreaming mind obliges all your expectations with a schema of a lucid dream. I have had dreams where I did lucid things, like sitting down with dream characters and explaining lucid dreaming to them, or flying, etc, all without ever having the presence of my waking awareness in any form at all! In other words, I have had "lucid" dreams that failed on all four of the corollaries you list. And I'm not at all surprised: since LD'ing no doubt ranks high among the daily thoughts of ambitious LD'ers, you can bet that LD'ing will rank high on the list of day residue that your dreaming mind taps to generate dreams. Given that, why wouldn't it be possible for you to have dreams about LD'ing?

If you double-check my "proof" criteria, it's all about proving to yourself after waking that you were truly lucid, and not simply dreaming about it. So yeah, if during the dream you can pass any or all of those four corollaries, or pass your RC tests, or remember that your sleeping body still exists, right where you left it, then you're certainly lucid. And, I believe, the memory of that lucidity will stay with you as a waking-life long-term memory, so after you're awake it will stay with you as easily as any other waking memory; the very persistence of that memory is proof. Did I just repeat myself? Sorry... I guess it was important to me!

Now, if your dream was about being lucid, it would probably fade very quickly upon waking, just like the rest of your non-lucids. If it was a powerful dream it might stay with you a bit longer, and might even make it into long-term memory (as nightmares, for instance, do so well) but even then, I believe, careful examination of your remembered actions and thoughts during the dream might reveal that you were indeed not lucid. [and yes, some lucids, like some waking memories, don't make it into long-term memory either, but usually because they're dull or otherwise lack merit, like many waking memories]

It can happen. I think that to deny that false lucids can occur opens the door to declaring, upon waking, that anything that seemed like lucidity was lucidity, period. Doing this might feel good, but it also might keep you from developing your skills and perhaps prevent you from ever becoming truly aware in a dream. You'd think (and announce to the world) that you're an LD'er without ever getting to experience the joy and wonder of the condition itself. Which is why I started this thread.

I hope that made sense. If it didn't, or you did not misunderstand when the actual proof takes place, then let's chat some more. This I think is a very important -- and universally ignored -- part of developing LD'ing skills, so I think it would be great if a conversation were re-struck about it ... even if you prove me wrong!

Originally Posted by Sageous

So yeah, if during the dream you can pass any or all of those four corollaries

[1. Knowing that you are dreaming (amazingly enough)
2. Knowing that dream objects will disappear (remember O's daughter's dream of the shell on the beach?)
3. Knowing that physical laws need not apply
4. Clear memory of waking life]

, or 5. pass your RC tests, or 6. remember that your sleeping body still exists, right where you left it, then you're certainly lucid.

And, I believe, the memory of that lucidity will stay with you as a waking-life long-term memory, so after you're awake it will stay with you as easily as any other waking memory

I've finally read through the whole thread now (well, 80% of it--I skimmed/skipped some posts), and I think this is the clearest summary of the point I disagree on.

Sometimes all six of the above criteria are met, and yet my memory of the experience is still not as robust as daytime memories. I'm thinking of one in particular, though there have been several.

It may be pretty robust, but it usually still needs memory strengthening to ensure its preservation.

Has this never happened for you, Sageous, that the six criteria above have been met, and yet your memory is still inferior somewhat to that of daytime events?

^^ First, Venryx, when I read your post I said, "I said that? That sure doesn't sound like something I would say." So I scanned the thread and discovered that Ctharlhie actually posted those corollaries (as originally listed, I guess, by Deirdre Barret in one of her books). Those corollaries are not mine, with the exception I guess of #'s 5 & 6, which I assume you pulled from my response to Ctharlhie in the next post. I just wanted to make clear that the criteria listed have pretty much nothing to do with my OP, or the treatise in general (which is about how you deal with proving to yourself that you were lucid upon waking, and not that you are lucid while dreaming), and were part of a conversation I was apparently having with Ctharlhie about false lucids. I'm not sure why you attributed them to me, but be assured that, though they are arguably fine, I don't personally use them to measure the presence or quality of a LD, either during a LD or after waking.

That being made clear:

Originally Posted by Venryx

I've finally read through the whole thread now (well, 80% of it--I skimmed/skipped some posts), and I think this is the clearest summary of the point I disagree on.

Sometimes all six of the above criteria are met, and yet my memory of the experience is still not as robust as daytime memories. I'm thinking of one in particular, though there have been several.

Except, as I already noted, that you are actually basing your disagreement with D. Barret's criteria for deciding whether you are lucid during a dream, and not for remembering the dream upon waking. I believe my next post (#58) pretty much argued that you can have dreams about being lucid where all of those criteria are met, without ever actually enjoying the presence of your waking-life self-awareness (aka: lucidity) in the dream.

As much as nobody likes to talk about it, pretty much ever, I believe that False Lucids (FL's) can happen, and one way to realize that you weren't actually lucid might lie in the difficulty you are having in recalling the dream upon waking. This was one general point of the treatise; and of post #58, which I suggest you take a look at, so I don't have to delve too deeply here into FL's.

I personally have a feeling that this experience of false lucidity, especially for novice LD'ers who spend a lot of time thinking about or working on lucidity, happens far more often than we care to believe or accept. Frequent thinking about being lucid, imagining the feelings, reading other people's stories, doing day work, etc. tend to create both day residue and an unconscious desire to be lucid that can turn up in the content of our NLD's... so NLD's about lucidity are likely inevitable for all of us.

Per the OP, I have found that one sure way to confirm that my LD actually was a LD is that, upon waking, I can remember it like any other recent, important, waking-life consciousness event, and that the dream itself is not fading, as dreams normally tend to do (because, I believe, we are hard-wired to discard dreams immediately, lest their memory interfere with our waking-life memory and cause general cognitive confusion).

Here's the problem, and why I am truly an outlier with this theory: It is much nicer to wake up from a dream that sure felt lucid and decide it was a LD, even though it's already faded from my mind and was not stored as a memory, than it is to wake up and realize that, since I can't seem to retain the dream in which I was sure I was lucid, that I might not have been lucid at all. So I choose the option that errs in favor of lucidity, my goals, and generally feeling good about success. And, of course, as the dream fades and I am able to note that some of those criteria were met, I only feel better about having been lucid -- even though I never was.

I have a feeling -- and the reason I started this thread, if I remember properly, -- that a whole lot of dreams are being labeled as lucid in spite of the fact that lucidity was never achieved. Now, you might ask what harm there is in that? ... but there truly is harm, because a dreamer could get locked into a phase of only dreaming about LD,ing, and never give themself a chance to truly develop their skills, and discover the true experience of lucidity.

Okay, I'm pretty much repeating the OP and thread in general here, so enough said, I think.

Has this never happened for you, Sageous, that the six criteria above have been met, and yet your memory is still inferior somewhat to that of daytime events?

Far more often than I'd care to admit!

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ First, Venryx, when I read your post I said, "I said that? That sure doesn't sound like something I would say." So I scanned the thread and discovered that Ctharlhie actually posted those corollaries [...] Those corollaries are not mine, with the exception I guess of #'s 5 & 6, which I assume you pulled from my response to Ctharlhie in the next post. [...] I'm not sure why you attributed them to me, but be assured that, though they are arguably fine, I don't personally use them to measure the presence or quality of a LD, either during a LD or after waking.

Sorry about that! If you look closely, you'll notice I put brackets around the list of 4 corollaries. I thought that would be clear enough to mark it as having come from the prior post, but I probably should have used another [QUOTE] tag.

It's true that while you didn't list those corollaries yourself, you did reference them, and very much seemed to have affirmed that they're sufficient to establish lucidity--at least while you're in a dream. (see below for the quotes)

I just included them in-line (in brackets) to make it clear what you were referencing--sorry for the confusion.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Except, as I already noted, that you are actually basing your disagreement with D. Barret's criteria for deciding whether you are lucid during a dream, and not for remembering the dream upon waking.

Well, although they weren't your criteria, you did essentially make them your own by saying (from #58), "if during the dream you can pass any or all of those four corollaries [...] then you're certainly lucid".

As well as (from #58): "Of course you can prove to yourself during the dream that you are lucid, with RC's, memory, and certain self-awareness confirmations like those four corollaries. To say otherwise would be absurd."

However, I think I understand now that you're making a clear distinction between proof during a dream and proof upon waking.

In other words, while the above quotes do seem to say pretty unambiguously that those criteria are sufficient to establish lucidity while you're in a dream, they don't count essentially once you wake up, because you may have only (non-lucidly) dreamed that they passed? Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted by Sageous

I believe my next post (#58) pretty much argued that you can have dreams about being lucid where all of those criteria are met, without ever actually enjoying the presence of your waking-life self-awareness (aka: lucidity) in the dream.

But that's the same post where you said the two quotes above! Look them over again!

1) "if during the dream you can pass any or all of those four corollaries [...] then you're certainly lucid"
2) "Of course you can prove to yourself during the dream that you are lucid, with [...] confirmations like those four corollaries."

These quotes legitimately make it unclear to me what your position is!

I could try to understand your meaning better by going over the posts again, but I think it will be faster to just ask you directly:

Question 1) Let's say that you suddenly find yourself in what might be a dream. You remember the below 4 criteria, and start checking whether they're all true:

1. Knowing that you are dreaming (amazingly enough)
2. Knowing that dream objects will disappear (remember O's daughter's dream of the shell on the beach?)
3. Knowing that physical laws need not apply
4. Clear memory of waking life

Now let's say that you've found all 4 criteria to be true. Is that sufficient to prove to you, in that moment, that you are lucid?

Question 2) Now forget the scenario above, and pretend there's some other time, a week later say, where you just woke up. You have the feeling that you just exited a dream. So you think back, and remember a point in your dream where you checked all 4 of the criteria above, and they all passed. Of course, it's always possible your memory is faulty, but as much as you can remember, you checked the 4 criteria, and they really did pass (i.e. as much as you can remember, you really did know the dream objects would disappear, you really did know that physical laws need not apply, etc.). Is this sufficient to prove to you, now having awoken, that you were lucid in the dream?

Thank you! I legitimately want to clear up confusion on your position on this!

Love the thread, amazing points ++++

I know this is from far back in the thread. But this part really grabbed my attention:

Originally Posted by Sageous

Forget for a moment about controlling the dream, or generating schema on "your own." Instead: what if a very high level of lucidity allowed you to "tap in" to that computing power, to see it at work, and perhaps use some of it to your waking life benefit? Perhaps you could develop the ability to think of many things at once, as your dreaming mind must do to create the images and plot lines that it does. Not only that, but you could do so with much more coherency than the dreaming mind, since you can add your conscious rationale does. Quite a bit of mental power there.

Are you able to do this? If so, how did you achieve this? Is existing in void helpful?

Originally Posted by Sageous

One caveat, though: What I just described is exactly what psychotics do by nature, so you have to be very careful how you handle that "power," lest it handles you -- a good start is a disciplined proof habit.

I understand your point about proof regarding lucidity, but how do you maintain a healthy rationalism as your dreaming experiences become bizarre and outside of your rational paradigm of the world? I have only had a few instances where I encountered what could be "alien" energies or entities in a LD. Even though I suspect these presences in my dreams might be something beyond my understanding or comprehension, a part of me remains skeptical and realizes they could just be creations of my unconscious, or perhaps the collective unconscious. I have seen other users post ways to "test" if a DC is an outside entity such as ignoring and see if it still exists. As many of my DC are extremely well developed - they may seem to have intelligence, emotions, consistency, and even memories or thoughts - it's not hard for me to imagine a DC created my unconscious (or subconscious, if you will) remaining and being self-consistent even if I ignore it.

I imagine as what you describe in the first quote comes to fruition, the nature of both Waking Reality and Dreaming reality become more malleable and consciousness flows without interruption from one state to the next - the distinction between Waking reality and Dreaming reality becomes blurred. How do you distinguish between real and imagined experiences and avoid psychosis? Is this always an important distinction to make?

Hermine_Hesse:

I just came off a long session of LD'ing, replete w/ some of what you describe here; curious that the question happened to be raised today! Let me dump down a cup of of coffee or two first, to clear my head a bit... there, that's better! Now:

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

Are you able to do this? If so, how did you achieve this?

I'm not able to do it yet, that I know of. Indeed I can do little more than imagine how it might be achieved. Tapping the resources of the unconscious (and retaining sanity in the process) is a long-term goal/fantasy/theory of mine that I hope I will "achieve" by way of a sort of side-effect to the other stuff I'm doing (see dreams of transcendence (DOT) thread). Oh, and if I could achieve this, I'm guessing I would lack the time or inclination to post on a web site! Among that stuff I'm doing:

Is existing in void helpful?

It sure is. Existing in void, where the only "thing" present in all your creation is your essence, is simultaneously peaceful, exhilerating, and humbling. It also can become, I think, an excellent conduit for conscious communication between the three usually uncooperative bits of your Self: body, mind, soul. I haven't reached that point yet (or I have, but haven't yet developed a suitable metaphor to remember the moment -- DOT thread again!), but I have discovered that the void, after a few moments of that wonderful peace, can become quite the engine for creation...doing anything in a dream after time in nothing seems a snap every time. So yes, existing in the void is helpful...I hope that's what you meant by your question, now that I think of it...well, if not, ask again, and tell me what I missed!

I understand your point about proof regarding lucidity, but how do you maintain a healthy rationalism as your dreaming experiences become bizarre and outside of your rational paradigm of the world? I have only had a few instances where I encountered what could be "alien" energies or entities in a LD. Even though I suspect these presences in my dreams might be something beyond my understanding or comprehension, a part of me remains skeptical and realizes they could just be creations of my unconscious, or perhaps the collective unconscious.

In all honesty, I really never give this much thought -- I would imagine the act of applying rational thought during paradigm shifts like this, especially if alien events are unfolding, would do more harm than good. I simply maintain as powerful a sense of self (and wonder) as I can, and always remember that, no matter what I see or do in these strange, often indescribable conditions (see DOT thread), I know two things: first, that my sleeping body, the base for all this energy and activity, is safely tucked under my waking-life covers, and that all these strange things are happening in the domain of my own mind, and therefore are ultimately under my control, even if possibly not of my own creation. Also, sometimes there is simply no need to maintain rationalism -- some things defy reason, and are better experienced without it. And, of course, if things truly exceed my sense of self, they'll also likely exceed my ability to remember them anyway, so it doesn't matter (see that pesky DOT thread again!). And finally, keep in mind that I dive into that void with an expectation of "something wonderful." That sounds a little silly, I know, but if you are psychically "ready" for alien things to happen, they become much easier to endure and enjoy, even when they defy comprehension.

I have seen other users post ways to "test" if a DC is an outside entity such as ignoring and see if it still exists. As many of my DC are extremely well developed - they may seem to have intelligence, emotions, consistency, and even memories or thoughts - it's not hard for me to imagine a DC created my unconscious (or subconscious, if you will) remaining and being self-consistent even if I ignore it.

In my humble opinion, those users are wrong. You can't test a DC's existence any more or less than you can test the existence of your own dreaming body. Those DC's have been inserted into your dream by your dreaming mind (or, perhaps, someone else's dreaming mind, as it were), and it really doesn't give a crap if you choose to ignore a DC or not. I've turned away from DC's, indeed flown away from entire dream scenes, only to encounter them all five minutes later as my dreaming mind dutifully regroups. One notable DC has even dogged me through multiple LD's, with waking time in between (always corrupting my lucidity, too -- very annoying) . In fact, ignoring a DC often takes more concentration than having a conversation with it, so by the very act of ignoring it you may be making it more important than it was in the first place. You are correct in your assumption that your dreaming mind can create DC's with all the "intelligence, emotions, consistency, and even memories or thoughts" of your own DC body. For that reason alone they would defy an "ignore" test pretty easily, and wow unwary dreamers into thinking some other intelligent being has wandered into their dreams.

I imagine as what you describe in the first quote comes to fruition, the nature of both Waking Reality and Dreaming reality become more malleable and consciousness flows without interruption from one state to the next - the distinction between Waking reality and Dreaming reality becomes blurred. How do you distinguish between real and imagined experiences and avoid psychosis? Is this always an important distinction to make?

As Ctharlhie notes above, psychosis is the negative result of a seamless and, notably, uncontrolled, meld of your waking and dreaming (unconscious) experiences, to the point where you are unable to differentiate between them, and powerless to separate them. That is indeed a very bad thing. But add control, the power of an overriding "self," an ability to not so much differentiate as compartmentalize the blended world (i.e., stepping off a skyscraper in the physical world is always a bad thing, and nobody else in the waking world can see the dragon with whom you're conversing -- and vise-versa), and suddenly that psychosis becomes genius.

Again, at the risk of summoning yet another link to that DOT thread, the ability to successfully tap your unconscious mind in a wholistic and healthy way would be coincided with a quantum leap in your awareness and conscious ability. In other words, the new "you" who would have the capability to do these things would very likely never even think about distinguishing between real and imagined experiences, because it just wouldn't matter. Pretty cool, I think!

Thanks for asking, Hermine; though my brain does hurt a bit now!

P.S.: I just realized that I made this post without refering to what I wrote last year. I hope the new jibes with the old. It should, but if it doesn't, please be sure to call me on it!

Is there good and bad psychosis?

Increased dopamine levels in some individuals is associated with heightened creativity and yet an abnormal excess is linked with schizophrenia.
There really is a fine line between genius and madness.

But honestly, do I want my waking life to become more creative and dreamlike? Yes. Do I want my dream life to become more realistic and tangible? Again, yes. I would love to get to the point where going to sleep is a seamless transition between one reality and another. I don't doubt for a second that I would hang on to my sense of self and what is truly 'real'.

I understand. I have had one lucid dream. I remember it as a waking event, like you said, it was amazing. However I have had my sub-conscious trick me a few times into thinking I'm lucid. Things like me having dreams of just doing random stabilization techniques. If I hadn't had my first I would probably think these were lucids. I'm sure there are people on the site who may not have had any, but we'll never know, and they might not either.

Maaaaaaan, it sure was hard to read all that.
Now then... think what 0' said before about how people write their dreams being part of the problem, I will totally agree with that.
For example, I tend to be very lazy and won't write down most of my thoughts during a lucid or details about events, so when people read it they tend to tell me it is all a lie.

In fact, the little stuff with Oneiro at page 2 happened for me. Arne Sakkussnen said I was lying (same for Oneiro) about my lucid dreaming experiences because of my poor writting and english skills. Later on I accepted to do the tasks of Arne for a few months and she ackowledged them to be true, but then the tasks were given daily and I had a lot to do, so had to drop out of the whole task thing and start focusing on my own thing. Sadly by the time I came back Arne was already banned and I lost the link to her yahoo group so never had a chance to try her tasks again.

I do believe that proof is important though, a few times I wake up and when thinking back on the experience will notice parts at which I lost lucidity, but yeah I am not good at explaining and end up just putting it in a way for me to understand... guess this is what happens for a lot of people? They just write it down in a comfortable or familiar way and don't worry about others (and shouldn't be, anyway).

Also want to comment on the first point of knowing everything around you is a dream. While this is true sometimes people will try to impose another idea over the dream part to make the experience more meaningful. For example thinking a certain dream lover is real somewhere in order to not detriment the feelings, or like I do often to treat dreams as real (Just treat, though) while I am dreaming, sometimes will actually believe some stuff to be real while asleep but thats because of some experiments. So pretty much, no matter how much lucidity someone may have, sometimes they will choose for certain stuff to go with emotions rather than the lucidity.

But yeah, great thread and great read.

Also late to this, wasn’t active on the forum when the original thread was around.
Thank you, Sageous, for your thoughts. I think you raise many important issues herein, and I am surprised and disappointed by some of the negativity in response.

Having a rational mind, a constantly sceptical mindset, a constant awareness of the world around you and your memory and perception and so forth, is absolutely essential to cultivating lucid dreaming. Interestingly, the same rational scepticism is the cornerstone of scientific method (though it is not always embraced, but I won’t go into that here...).
Lucid dreaming and dreaming more generally are still not widely accepted as legitimate areas of study in many fields of science, and certainly even within the sleep science field, lucid dreaming and dreaming are often laughed off (with, I would argue, an unhealthy scepticism...)

We need people who are willing to treat dreams and LDs with this scepticism, to question it and by doing so help us learn more and charge the powerful minds and practices of science with telling us more about these phenomena. We, who feel the reality of lucid dreaming. We who are passionate about it. We who are convinced that this has a central role in our own lives, and is potentially very important in all our lives; we who are convinced that this practice can be used for the betterment of ourselves and others and the world at large.

The science of dreaming is a passion of mine, and I hope that others on this forum can engage with it actively, and consider their actions and ideas in light of our scientific paradigm. Without engaging that aspect of it, how can we expect to lift the perception of LDs in the public conscience?

In a more direct response to earlier points about false lucids in particular, I agree with Sageous that these are possible – I would argue very likely, almost inevitable.
I have certainly had experiences within dreams of talking about dreams, even of discussing lucid dreams with others – this doesn’t mean I was lucid. On actual lucidity, we should always be sceptical, first of all because I think that within the dream we could misattribute action in the dream to our own agency, and second (and more likely) we could misattribute our level of consciousness and lucidity in hindsight, upon wakening.
I know that in my own dream journaling, I often write motivations and reasons for things that I immediately recognise were not inherent in the dream, but are part of my own subconscious process of making sense of the images and actions of the dream. If this can happen noticeably, it almost certainly occurs subconsciously – and if it can happen frequently in this way, it is likely that we can misremember our broader state of consciousness and agency within the dream.

Sweet jesus... My entire response was discarded because it contained a picture and I'm not yet a full weeks member on Dreamviews....

Now it's 8:00 in the morning and I haven't slept yet... I cannot dream of rewriting it now. So I'll post to get subscribed and I'll jump back in with my views when I am well rested(hopefully I'll have time for this tommorow.)

true story bro..or maybe not.

As someone who has not been practicing toward the goal of lucid dreaming for very long at all, I'd just like to say that I feel that it's important for beginners to try and imagine what a lucid dream will feel like, and to adjust that image as they make progress in the dream world.

In my own experience, I always figured that a lucid dream would simply be one in which the world around me would begin to more accurately resemble reality. I think this ties in with having a dream feel like a 'waking memory', which for me, having not reached what I'd consider lucidity is not enough. Since I've been practicing, nearly every dream I have feels like I'm awake, including a fully functioning dream body with all of the five senses, continuity, and a vivid and interactive landscape that is virtually indistinguishable from waking life, even to the point that I will be wearing the same clothes as when I was last awake, be in the same rooms, or with the same company, or travelling about a dream replica of the town I live in.

As such I've adjusted my image, just as I had to adjust it when I began to defy the laws of physics in dreams, realized I was doing so on some level, and still did not 'wake up' in the dream.

The event I'm waiting for is when I will be able to treat everything in my environment in the dream as subject to any change I wish, while also being able to say, "I'm asleep, when I was awake I was doing X, when I wake up I will do Y, this dream will now be Z".

I fully believe its possible, and I doubt it will be anything like what I imagine it as, but I have to keep adjusting what I define as the hallmark of lucidity by process of elimination as I experience more, and keep pushing. It's possible, and probable I believe that even when I do become lucid I will be able to continue pushing my presence to new levels of awareness that I didn't think possible in waking life, but I recognize that this will take time.

One thing I forgot to mention; another reason I don't consider lucidity to be connected with how well I remember the dream is that since I've been doing these practices, I seem to be able to recall very distant dreams, some so far in the past that I can't remember when I dreamed them, but in the memory that is dredged up, they may as well all have happened the previous night. This happens sometimes while I meditate, sometimes when I RC, and sometimes when I'm simply working and not really thinking about anything.

Glad everyone is being cordial...makes for a good topic when people can honestly disagree. The challenge with stating facts about LDs is it is experiential by nature. It is like faith in God to some degree. I know I lucid dream. I cant know for sure you do. So I have to trust you are being honest and bounce my experiences off yours and see if they correspond close enough to believe what you are saying eevenif not exactly the same. I dont think I have ever forgot a lucid dream...ie not that day at least. Cant believe i could...But mine are short and I dont chain them, so I believe those who say they can. But mine ARE like real memories. I also have been lucid but blown away by the setting and do NOT feel in control of the schema, even if it is mine. But I chalk that up to a strong subconscious. Those DCs dont behave as if I control them...altjough I can beat the up every time if I choose. Ive felt compelled to explain something to my son in an LD even though I know he is a DC but he still looks and acts like someone I love. I knew I was lucid once but was on a cliff..I have a fear of heights, and I thought about just letting go but fear constrained me from doing so. But I know I was lucid and not just dreaming I was lucid.

^^ Well said.

Remember though that the "proof" we're talking about here is one made to yourself, and not to others. I really don't care if other people believe that I was lucid or not, but it matters that I can prove to myself that I was lucid.

Also, regarding your last bit, LD's are experienced at a variety of levels; of course you can have an experience where you lacked control, or even memory during the dream, but were still very self-aware. And, of course, you will remember it like any other waking life moment, so the proof will be readily available.

I hope this post actually ties in with the conversation... it has been well over a year since I posted here or even looked at the thread, so I can only remember the treatise itself, the tone of thread, and some of the responses, but not so much the directions the conversations went. I hope I didn't contradict myself!

EXCELLENT thread and topic - I am just sorry that I did not see this before!!

I would like to bring up what we were previously talking about in the other thread - proving shared dreaming. First of all, let me break down my current hypothesis of how a shared dream (potentially - based on my own, and others experiences) works; I believe that if they are possible shared dreams would be sort of like telepathy, one would first try and connect to the person - both people would NEED to be lucid in order to succeed. At first I believe the connections would be weak, so this would ultimately mean that synchronizations would only be a few (unless you happen to be an experienced shared dreamer or have other reason) and would also probably be mainly symbolically based. (also perhaps you would only be receiving half of the picture) The more you would attempt to share a dream the better the connection would be - simply because you would know how to 'tune in' to the correct frequency. So I suspect that the average person would need to have 5-10 successful attempts before real CLEAR shared dreams are reported back with any real success (which does not have to rely on symbolism as a translator)

Even then, if you have two people who perceive the universe in such different ways there is a good chance that shared dreaming would never be able to be perceived the same (for the majority of the time) by both people simply because their own personal symbolic vocabulary would be vastly different to one another and not compatible. I'm not sure about this statement but it is my current thought process on the matter

Anyway, the point of all this is that if you consider this theory a possibility, then recording a proving a shared dream in the early stages is clearly not as simple as first perceived. (not counting for the fact that if accounts are made up then two people could simply contact one another through email before talking to you ) for the same reason why the classic 'dream diary' does not work (because everybody is different and has there own personal symbolism which make up their own personal dream diary) shared dreaming poses the same potential problems.

Let me draw out an example which you may have read in the other thread:

Me and my daughter had a very simple dream experiment early on where by I said a password and she had to receive it. My secret random password was 'giraffe'. What she told me the next day she received was 'unicorn'

At first I thought this to be a failure and moved on, it was only until Aa year later did I consider another alternative explanation to what happened. First of all let me say that a giraffe to me is something pretty amazing - it is possibly the most beautifully unique mammal nature has given us, from it's strange but wonderful proportions to it's huge size coupled with it's gentle nature and unique brightly colored patterns it is truly one of natures most beautiful animals. With this is in mind I would suggest that when I gave the password what was received is not language per say, but rather the emotional idea - and when my daughter (who was seven at the time) perceived this idea through her own visual symbolism she perceived something different -the most beautiful and wonderful mammal which she perceived as real - a unicorn.

As I said, this is a potential possibility - I am not saying this is what actually did happen - it is just as likely that she was thinking of unicorns that night and so that is the first thing that came to her. I agree that this would be more than a suitable explanation - but if the alternative is true, then we need to re-think everything we think we should expect from shared dreaming.

I am also interested in making this my life's work and hope that this is true but will try not and let the hope cloud my judgement. My aim is to understand, if shared dreaming is real, how it works. Create a system where by everybody can experience it - because if one person can do it then surely everybody can with a bit of practice!

Originally Posted by floatinghead

I would like to bring up what we were previously talking about in the other thread - proving shared dreaming. First of all, let me break down my current hypothesis of how a shared dream (potentially - based on my own, and others experiences) works; I believe that if they are possible shared dreams would be sort of like telepathy, one would first try and connect to the person - both people would NEED to be lucid in order to succeed. At first I believe the connections would be weak, so this would ultimately mean that synchronizations would only be a few (unless you happen to be an experienced shared dreamer or have other reason) and would also probably be mainly symbolically based. (also perhaps you would only be receiving half of the picture) The more you would attempt to share a dream the better the connection would be - simply because you would know how to 'tune in' to the correct frequency. So I suspect that the average person would need to have 5-10 successful attempts before real CLEAR shared dreams are reported back with any real success (which does not have to rely on symbolism as a translator)

Even then, if you have two people who perceive the universe in such different ways there is a good chance that shared dreaming would never be able to be perceived the same (for the majority of the time) by both people simply because their own personal symbolic vocabulary would be vastly different to one another and not compatible. I'm not sure about this statement but it is my current thought process on the matter

That theory makes a lot of sense to me, and, if the two dream-sharers are close to each other, both physically and emotionally, it could work in our physical realm without rewriting any laws. Also, I think your description of the difficulty surrounding the actual communication is spot on as well -- we really all do assemble our perceptions differently and, even if you managed to project the exact image you wanted to, your dreaming-sharing partner might see it entirely differently (more in a sec).

Anyway, the point of all this is that if you consider this theory a possibility, then recording a proving a shared dream in the early stages is clearly not as simple as first perceived. (not counting for the fact that if accounts are made up then two people could simply contact one another through email before talking to you ) for the same reason why the classic 'dream diary' does not work (because everybody is different and has there own personal symbolism which make up their own personal dream diary) shared dreaming poses the same potential problems.

Yes, it is almost easier to "prove" that a shared dream didn't happen rather than did, simply because the differences initially seem so stark that you're willing to write off the experience as "just a dream." But this may be a good thing, when it comes to proving the shared-dream to yourself (which for me is all that matters), because ultimately the pieces will eventually fall together for either you or your partner, and the proof will be obvious. I know, that was a pretty vague statement; but it's okay, because you offered a perfect clarification right here:

Let me draw out an example which you may have read in the other thread:

Me and my daughter had a very simple dream experiment early on where by I said a password and she had to receive it. My secret random password was 'giraffe'. What she told me the next day she received was 'unicorn'

At first I thought this to be a failure and moved on, it was only until Aa year later did I consider another alternative explanation to what happened. First of all let me say that a giraffe to me is something pretty amazing - it is possibly the most beautifully unique mammal nature has given us, from it's strange but wonderful proportions to it's huge size coupled with it's gentle nature and unique brightly colored patterns it is truly one of natures most beautiful animals. With this is in mind I would suggest that when I gave the password what was received is not language per say, but rather the emotional idea - and when my daughter (who was seven at the time) perceived this idea through her own visual symbolism she perceived something different -the most beautiful and wonderful mammal which she perceived as real - a unicorn.

As I said, this is a potential possibility - I am not saying this is what actually did happen - it is just as likely that she was thinking of unicorns that night and so that is the first thing that came to her. I agree that this would be more than a suitable explanation - but if the alternative is true, then we need to re-think everything we think we should expect from shared dreaming.

That to me defines both the problem of communication and its resolution in a nutshell -- thanks for sharing! The image you projected was one thing to you and another altogether to your daughter, but eventually you figured out that they were both the same thing, and you did so with a rationalization that cleared up the experience, rather than muddy it. Very cool!

None of this of course settles my real problems with shared-dreaming as a physical event (especially with people who are far away and not intimately related to you), but it does clarify the problem with communication, and how it might be better understood, if not overcome.

I am also interested in making this my life's work and hope that this is true but will try not and let the hope cloud my judgement. My aim is to understand, if shared dreaming is real, how it works. Create a system where by everybody can experience it - because if one person can do it then surely everybody can with a bit of practice!

That is an excellent life's work, I think, especially if you succeed. And if you do, I will expect to be contacted with details -- during a dream, of course!