Perhaps if someone would like to create an account with them and comment that thousands of people all over the world practice lucid dreaming and share their experiences via online communities (without linking to any) and this suggests the activity is real. Written material on lucid dreaming dates back thousands of years, and has been used as therapy for people with recurring nightmares and PTSD (as stated in the article).
People who have never had one are natural doubters, but lucid dreaming isn't a cult task or religious experience (or a delusion). Lucid dreaming is a simple activity that people can experience every day, and sometimes with little or no effort (or five years of meditating).
I would like to see someone articulate that sentiment without trying to promote any website and with little or no grammatical errors.
No grammatical errors, but logical errors are alright?
That's the same argument people tend to use to "prove" their religion isn't bogus.
It would be better to present peer-reviewed, scientific research on the topic that confirms the existence of lucid dreaming. 'Cause, you know, that's the whole point of research.
No grammatical errors, but logical errors are alright?
That's the same argument people tend to use to "prove" their religion isn't bogus.
It would be better to present peer-reviewed, scientific research on the topic that confirms the existence of lucid dreaming. 'Cause, you know, that's the whole point of research.
The problem is we don't have any scientific evidence that proves the existence of lucid dreaming, even with all the researchers and people who say they experience it.
We don't have any scientific way to prove that love exists either but no one doubts the existence of it.
I'm sure this message could easily be conveyed without scientific evidence, the notion that lucid dreaming exists and poeple should do their own research.
Errors in grammar and spelling are the calling card of unreliability and that's the last thing we want people to perceive about lucid dreaming.
Bookmarks