Lucid Dreaming on CBS This Morning

[imfivebyfive]

I was surprised when a segment came on this morning about lucid dreaming on CBS this morning show. Anyone else happen to catch it? The biggest problem it seems is that most people don't believe it can be done! Lucid dreaming: You can control your dreams - CBS News Video

[Ekyu]

People are quite close minded about stuff like lucid dreaming, because it's something that your normally would say "stop living in a fairytale". But the funny thing is it's scientifically proven, but they don't show that in there it seems.. Seems like they didn't really did to mutch research on it sadly, just some videos of inception that gives a bad viewpoint on lucid dreaming. And a interview with one lucid dreamer. Wish they talked to people who actually research lucid dreaming, think the end result would be a lot better.

[Mzzkc]

Two second of research would have revealed this: Psychophysiology of Lucid Dreaming Along with a slew of other relevant papers. Oh well. It's not like we could ever expect mainstream media to provide factual, well-researched reports.

[Sivason]

I suppose some people heard about for the first time and will get on the web and find us.

[Robot_Butler]

Thank goodness for the internet. Access to real information. Hopefully this sparks some interest for some people. I remember seeing little snippets of stuff like this on the news when I was a kid. Sometimes it sticks

[DreamGuy]

Some people like the idea of lucid dreaming. But they give up and forget about it when it doesn't happen the first night they try. Most people just don't put enough dedication and commitment to lucid dream.

[dutchraptor]

Some people like the idea of lucid dreaming. But they give up and forget about it when it doesn't happen the first night they try. Most people just don't put enough dedication and commitment to lucid dream. Most of my friends tried lucid dreaming and failed because they think its too much work. Its surprising to see that people dont even have 10 minutes a day to spair.

[melanieb]

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.

[Mzzkc]

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.

[Mindraker]

Great find. One thing is for sure if that's on the news, nothing too bad is happening in the world.

[Ladusence]

Great find. One thing is for sure if that's on the news, nothing too bad is happening in the world. Ha-ha-ha, there is so much bad going on in the world that they refuse to report. Are they trying to make the viewer feel smart by this whole "I don't get the story behind inception" act or are they really that stupid? A news show like this really makes me lose faith in humanity... 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. As far as I know our last discussion about proving that lucid dreaming exists ended without proof? Well I can't think of a way the proof that it exists anyway. I'm glad they did feature this though because it will at least inform more people about the existence of lucid dreaming.

[ace55]

Most don't know about it because they never heard of Lucid Dreaming. When they do hear of it they think of it as a religious occult only issue and not so much of a dream control issue so various people will dismiss it. Some will try it and say they couldn't lucid dream so it must be in our heads. But these people put very little effort into it. They go to bed and believe just by thinking they want to LD they will, and of course don't, so they say we must be mentally messed up for something or doing some form of LSD. They don’t research enough to learn there's a lot of study that goes into it, and learning. Using techniques, maybe certain supplements, and having to train you brain to be aware in a dream if it’s possible (dream signs, etc). You just don’t LD unless you’re natural over night. Many studies have been done and LD is simply controlling your dreams. There has been research into this since the 1950s. REM sleep cycles and all that. Even in the field of AP. I dont fell like looking up all the people that have been involved, but its been plenty. Look up Stephen Laberge for one (a psychophysiology whom investigated heavy into LDing), The Monroe Institute is one area that focuses only on the LD/AP research area. Keith Hearne, PhD another researcher into this topic. Patricia Garfield PhD spent most of her career researching the topics of dreams and lucid dreaming and wrote many book son the subject. Problem with some of these news media outlets is that they do half-lazy research and say "well since I havent seen any research into it in the last year it probably has never been really researched" and some outlets act like unless everything in the world can be physically displayed than it probably can't be scientifically proven. Its just called "willful ignorance" on their part. Fear plays into it too. If you’re afraid to Lucid Dream you won’t. Some religions set a mindset that its evil, satanic, not of God, or something supernaturally wrong when it is not. That those whom LD must be in a bizarre dark culture cult.

[Ladusence]

and some outlets act like unless everything in the world can be physically displayed than it probably can't be scientifically proven. Its just called "willful ignorance" on their part. According to the scientific method, to scientifically proof something you need to have empirical proof, in other words measurable "physical" proof. So thinking that you can scientifically proof something in this world without physically displaying it, could be willful ignorance on your part. Please correct me if I misinterpreted anything you said, I just like to use my Wikipedia knowledge~

[melanieb]

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.

[Sivason]

(or five years of meditating). That sure doesn't hurt though.

[Mzzkc]

Wow. Did any of you even read the link I previously posted? You want empirical evidence? There it is. Seriously. Am I the only one here who bothers to read scientific articles these days in order to verify or disprove any outstanding claims? I expect behavior like this from media outlets, but I thought this community was capable of better. Guess I was wrong. Edit: As for the love thing: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...2007.19.7.1218 Again, two seconds of research.

[dakotahnok]

I hate that they second guess lucid dreaming. They have a whole article about it, and at the end they are still doubting it. I feel like all they did was interview a couple people and then make their piece. Why not mention that lucid dreaming has been scientifically proven hundreds of times. They even say that lucid dreaming is pretty much impossible to prove and we just have to trust this one woman. Well how about mentioning Stephen laberge and other notable scientist? They really didn't dig deep. But at least it was fairly long.

[Extremador]

I really really hate it when I explain lucid dreaming to somebody and they go, "Oh like Inception?"

[Mzzkc]

??? It opened to a paper about the experience of love ??? Not at all clear what you mean. I would be glad to look at any 'proof' you feel is out there. I am a scientist though and have had to review papers. The things that make a study have 'weight' are pretty strict. A study can sound good, and yet not begin to 'prove' anything. Even studies that seem to show a result are then subject to statistical tools and must have changed something enough that it can not really be an accident. I think I made things abundantly clear. Here, let me quote my first post in this thread: the one I was referring to when I said "Did any of you even read the link I previously posted?" Two second of research would have revealed this: Psychophysiology of Lucid Dreaming Along with a slew of other relevant papers. Oh well. It's not like we could ever expect mainstream media to provide factual, well-researched reports. Read over the study and statistical analysis yourself. Then, if you've got the time and resources, look into the references. Articles like this are just a starting point for deeper research.

[Sivason]

Wow! I deleated that post with in 1 to 2 minutes of making it, and yet you still managed to read it and respond. My bad. I found the link you put above. It is an awesome link and I am glad you included it. Everyone should read it. It is maybe a little hard for non-science minded people, but I liked it a lot. It would be a shame if anyone could look at all that data and still be stupid enough to say lucid dreams do not exist. It could be argued that subjective things can not be proven, and I did find small petty ways a synical person could claim it proved nothing. I find it very convincing when viewed from a science point of view. I did not see the CBS thing, but it sounds like they should have talked to you for a minute before putting their foot in their mouths. lol.

[Mzzkc]

Lol. I get instant email notification and have a chrome extension that alerts me and lets me read my email without ever touching my inbox. Lets me stay on top of things and keep emails from piling up too quickly.

[melanieb]

That document by LaBerge is horribly written for a "scientific" paper. The MIT paper doesn't prove the existence of love but the existence of a reaction to familar items and associations. Did you read both of those documents? 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. 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.

[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."

[TheForgotten]

Wow. Did any of you even read the link I previously posted? You want empirical evidence? There it is. Seriously. Am I the only one here who bothers to read scientific articles these days in order to verify or disprove any outstanding claims? I expect behavior like this from media outlets, but I thought this community was capable of better. Guess I was wrong. Edit: As for the love thing: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie Again, two seconds of research. 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. You seem to expect a lot out of DVers. 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.

[Mzzkc]

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. 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. Did you read both of those documents? Did you understand them? 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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?