Thread: Lucid Dreaming on CBS This Morning

Originally Posted by melanieb

That document by LaBerge is horribly written for a "scientific" paper.

It's an APA conference paper; it's meant to be approachable, broad, and well researched--which it is. As a starting point for researching existing empirical data, it's wonderful.

Originally Posted by melanieb

The MIT paper doesn't prove the existence of love but the existence of a reaction to familar items and associations.

Wherein some of those associations carried the baggage commonly referred to as love, while the others were associated with concepts similar to love, i.e., passion and friendship.

Of course, that was just their methodology. Your statement is akin to saying, "By charting and discovering a mathematical basis for the movement of the planets, I have proven that the planets move and that I can chart them." The interesting thing isn't the fact that the planets move (or that there's a reaction in the brain to stimuli), it's the basis on which they move that's compelling.

This study is a first step toward creating a neurological framework for love. Much like LaBerge helped pioneered a methodology toward studying lucid dreams, it's a gateway to larger amounts of empirical evidence from which we can further ascertain "proof," as you like to put it.

Originally Posted by melanieb

Did you read both of those documents?

Did you understand them?

Originally Posted by melanieb

I'm not saying love or lucid dreaming doesn't exist...not by a long shot. I know they exist just as much as you do. But we have yet to empirically prove their existence as anything other than a subjective experience.

There's nothing wrong with that. Some things defy proof or current methods of study, and that's okay.

Read ace's post. It goes over pretty much everything I'd have to say about this. Fact of the matter is, Lucid Dreaming has already been overwhelmingly "proven" and is widely accepted by the scientific community.

Things like AP/OBE and other such phenomena aren't because most studies involving that stuff are restricted to individual case studies, which alone aren't sufficient for establishing "proof." Personally, I'd be interested in repeating LaBerge's classical LDing experiment, but with people who claim they experience AP/OBE. Done properly, a study like that could provide a basis for further research by determining if that phenomena shares the same psychophysiological framework as lucid dreaming.

Originally Posted by melanieb

I still believe it would be a good idea to encourage people to look into the concept. Some people would fine their way here, and that benefits us all.

Not necessarily. Assuming they stick around long enough to contribute something useful and original, we're still looking at more of the same "how I ld?", "was this sp?", "i made a new ild!" in higher quantities than before.

Originally Posted by ace55

ladusence

Science claims there are 300 billion galaxies in our universe (although no one has seen all 300 billion and most of is based on theories based off of massive galaxy clusters of what can eb observed within our range.) With about only 10 percent being spiral. A theory is out there that only spiral galaxies like our own can inhabit life. How many times have we heard science make the claim there are life in other galaxies or at least possible life on other planets within these spiral galaxies when of course we do not have “physical” proof of such life. Science also has many theories, and science is ever changing, such as Pluto once being a planet and not it’s not. Not everything is fully based on "physical in your hand" proof. There are also various branches of science and not all of them deal with physical object items.

When you’re dealing with the mind we loop out of physical sciences and head into the area of science that deals with the consciousness, subconsciousness, and the mind and this is called psychology. Psychology is a science that deals with the mind and emotions of human-beings.

Wikipedia: Psychology is the study of the mind, occurring partly via the study of behavior.[1][2] Grounded in scientific method,[1][2] psychology has the immediate goal of understanding individuals and groups by both establishing general principles and researching specific cases,[3][4] and for many it ultimately aims to benefit society

When it comes to some research with the mind you cannot just “physically” prove something like you would if this was a debate on evolution or physical anthropology where you say "show me the object in your hand or else it will be dismissed". What is usually done is "case studies" where a person is put under mental evaluation to see if there are any changes during Astral Projection or Lucid Dreaming such as EEG changes. Sometimes individual case studies, sometimes a group of people, and so forth. Then based on the results its either deemed favorable, non-favorable, or inconclusive. This applies to various other areas of psychology.

One such study was done in 1978 where a claimed Astral Projector was put under observation by Dr Osis. This APer named “Alex Tanous” identified correctly 114 out of the 197 his targets while claiming to be out of body and under observation including vibration sensors showing a higher level of brain activity when he was OBE. Cat experiments have been done too interesting results. Does this prove OBE/LDs are real? No. However they give us some evidence (especially through the readers) especially to the skeptic that there is something going on, and for most anything to do with psychology or things of the mind especially which can fall into “occult” studies, will always be dismissed. by the upmost skeptics.

Lucid Dreaming is the ablity to control and change your dream enviroment. Many on this forum alone have done this and can give witness too this. Many techniques are open to help one experiment themselves. Drives one nuts when someone said "Oh I tried to LD once before bed and it didnt happen...it must be all a delusion in their heads because I never was able to have one...even though I only tried once."

<3

Originally Posted by Kaomea

You know, it might have helped if you just said, "You only need to read the abstract, not the entire article." I assume that's the two seconds you mentioned. I know some get confused when it comes to research.

Yeah, a few seconds to read the abstract, methodology, and conclusion is usually enough to ascertain the worth of a document to the topic at hand.

Finding documents is even faster if you know the common search tricks.

Originally Posted by Kaomea

You seem to expect a lot out of DVers.

Yes. Yes I do.

DV is like the US of the LDing community. It's big, boisterous, demographically diverse, and it's got more power and influence than it knows how to handle sometimes.

Originally Posted by Kaomea

I didn't actually comb through the entire article but it sounds practical. When love is involved (high value emotional input) the brain uses another neural network to access and process stimuli. Seen that happen time and time again, without the use of the fMRI. Btw, having that resource is fabulous, especially since their research involved something as unscientific as love.

I know, right?