Thread: Is it possible to become a natural lucid dreamer?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I suppose you could differenciate between people who discovered it naturally and those who took to it naturally after being told about it.

Discovered, ie. learned, ie. not natural.

Umm - so then by that definition there can't possibly ever be a natural? Because even if their first dream was a lucid that still constitutes discovering the ability. Just as you wouldn't know you were a natural guitar player until you actually picked up a guitar and tried to play it.

Ctharlhie.

Many people play the Guitar as much as Hendrix or Clapton, Hendrix being the more Natural of the 2 and never achieve the level of either of them!
As I say Hendrix being the more Natural of the 2 even blew Clapton out the water when they first met, when Clapton was just as Dedicated and Practised in the Skill of Guitar playing.
This can only boil down to Natural ability.
Also the same applies in many other areas where some People just excel where others struggle, no matter how many hours of practice they put in.
What else can this be but Natural ability?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Umm - so then by that definition there can't possibly ever be a natural? Because even if their first dream was a lucid that still constitutes discovering the ability. Just as you wouldn't know you were a natural guitar player until you actually picked up a guitar and tried to play it.

Exactly.

Nature and culture is a false dichotomy.

Aside from Ctharlhie's obvious good point, Darmatters, I can't help but mention that you're bringing us back around to defining lucidity.

Yes, very low-level lucidity might occur naturally, but this lucidity, like that enjoyed by children, is little more than a back-of-the-mind "knowledge" that this place is a dream, perhaps, especially in kids, as a bit of unconscious prep for dealing with nightmares. But is this knowledge really lucid dreaming? Is self-awareness really there? As I've already said earlier, I don't think so.

Also, just like Mr. Hendrix and his guitar, when a kid has his first lucid experience, I doubt very much that it is a full-blown -- well-played -- high-end LD. To get there, he has to add his own input, on purpose, with work. And yes, he can do that without ever needing to know the mechanics of LD'ing; just like a guitar player can learn chords without learning the physics behind the harmonic vibration of metal thread. Sometimes practice is enough.

Another thought: I'm not sure if it was on this thread or another, but it also needs to be pointed out that a tendency for natural talent is much more likely with talents like guitar playing, because that talent represents fortunate hard-wiring of brain circuitry that's already there (i.e, eye-hand coordination, sound recognition), whereas LD'ing would require circuitry to do something literally counter to the hard-wiring period -- stay awake in a dream. Because the wiring isn't available in the first place (barring mutations, I guess, which I would welcome), then it makes sense that a person would need to do the rewiring -- or rather additional wiring -- on their own.

@ Ctharlie - Ok then, you don't believe the term natural should be used for lucid dreaming at all. What then would you suggest we call the various different types listed here - those who figured it out on their own and those who took to it like a duck to water once told about it? Especially bearing in mind the former have always been referred to in here as Naturals?

@ Sageous - there's already a definition of lucidity right? Knowing you're dreaming while you're dreaming. All you're saying is that you don't think the naturals (my definition) are experiencing a high level of awareness.

This brings up those experiences we've talked about before, where you're on the verge of lucidity but just don't quite understand that you're dreaming. In my journal I've stated it as "another one of - these things" - where I was aware that the laws of physics don't apply the way they normally do, and also that I've experienced this before, but I just didn't quite understand that I was dreaming. That wouldn't be lucidity, since I didn't know I was dreaming, but I was right on the cusp of it.

Yes, if people experienced that as kids, then I wouldn't call them natural lucid dreamers, though it's of course a huge step in that direction and would easily tip over into lucid dreaming as soon as they understand they're actually in a dream.

Maybe your objection is that kids don't fully understand the difference between dream and reality? And I think that's a very good point. It's quite possible that the majority of people who have been called naturals really weren't quite lucid as kids. Indeed, if they didn't really know they were dreaming, but thought as I have in some of 'those experiences' that they were in some kind of magic place or some kind of weird altered state of consciousness but didn't realize it was a dream, then they weren't lucid (though they were a mere heartbeat away from it, and in later life, as soon as they did learn to distinguish dream from waking life, they would then be able to become lucid quite easily).

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

@ Ctharlie - Ok then, you don't believe the term natural should be used for lucid dreaming at all. What then would you suggest we call the various different types listed here - those who figured it out on their own and those who took to it like a duck to water once told about it? Especially bearing in mind the former have always been referred to in here as Naturals?

@ Sageous - there's already a definition of lucidity right? Knowing you're dreaming while you're dreaming. All you're saying is that you don't think the naturals (my definition) are experiencing a high level of awareness.

That was never the issue, natural is the accepted term for people who lucid dream without effort, and the question of the op is whether that state is possible for anyone. When you deconstruct the very idea of natural (lucidity is always learned), it means that being a 'natural' is possible for anyone, the question asked in the OP.

Darkmatters.

I used them examples just to demonstrate what people usually use the term Natural to mean when applied to a Skill.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

@ Sageous - there's already a definition of lucidity right? Knowing you're dreaming while you're dreaming. All you're saying is that you don't think the naturals (my definition) are experiencing a high level of awareness.

You don't need a high level of self-awareness to be lucid, just some self-awareness. The trouble with your definition (and I've always felt this) is that it holds the bar far too low, and I think this acceptance of such a low bar might do some damage to learning how to LD.

I think I'm already getting tired of this subject. I feel so alone.

@ Mr0Blonde - I understand that, and I wasn't arguing against what you had said at all - sorry if it seemed like I was. I just wanted to point out the basic difference between the particular skills you had listed and something like lucidity, which requires no props and no standardized teaching about something like the alphabet and penmanship. Closer maybe to being able to whistle.

@ Sageous - I don't know if you saw the later additions to my last post - I changed it a couple of times and I think my latest addition is something you might find interesting. But let me also point out that what you call "my" definition of lucidity is actually the standard worldwide-accepted definition. However, that doesn't diminish your excellent points at all - as soon as you realize that those kids who don't have enough self-awareness don't actually understand that they're dreaming. Ergo not truly lucid.

Oh, and I suppose I could change that to "high enough level of awareness".

@ everyone else - it looks like this is mostly just a semantics thread with everybody claiming their definitions of words are the only right ones. My goal is to actually try to make some sense of all this and maybe come to an overall understanding of the ideas behind it, not just argue definitions of words.

Originally Posted by Sageous

You don't need a high level of self-awareness to be lucid, just some self-awareness. The trouble with your definition (and I've always felt this) is that it holds the bar far too low, and I think this acceptance of such a low bar might do some damage to learning how to LD.

I think I'm already getting tired of this subject. I feel so alone.

I think the bar needs to be low enough that people are not discouraged due to lack of success. If we only counted the "true lucids" if there was not only awareness that it is a dream but also some self-awareness, then many fewer beginners could say they were lucid. Plus those low level lucid dreams do help one achieve a higher level of lucidity ultimately, it's just that they don't right away, but if beginners dismissed and did not count low level lucids then they would be much less likely to progress to higher level lucidity and much more likely to just give up on the effort due to not enough positive reinforcement. I remember my first lucids 20 years ago were pathetic for a while, and I knew they were pathetic, and I think most people who have low level lucids only realize that they are missing something. But if you had told me back then, and those are not even lucids, I would have been much more likely to just say, well, I guess I can't get lucid then, I give up, this is taking too long. Now, I am much more patient, but my patience is really getting tried now because since returning to the hobby in February I have just had two lucids, and using your definition of true lucid, I guess I have had zero lucids, but darn it, I have worked so hard to achieve those two lucids, and I want credit for them, even though I know full well that they are not sufficient to really satisfy me because 20 years ago I did have dreams that would meet even your strict criteria of true lucids, so I know what I want to achieve, ok?

No, I think you're misunderstanding what Sageous is saying. I think his point is simply that the kids who people call naturals - the ones who started from nightmares without ever learning about lucidity first - don't actually quite understand that they're in a dream. I think they experience what I was talking about - where you understand it isn't normal everyday stuff, and that you sometimes find yourself here in this weird place, but you just don't quite realize that you're asleep and dreaming.

If they did understand that, and grasp the implications of it, (< important!) then they would know they have absolutely nothing to fear from the monsters and can turn their back and do whatever they want. But apparently a lot of them never really understood that - they only learned how to wake themselves up or they came to understand that they were in a dream but failed to realize that they have nothing to fear - meaning they lacked enough awareness. Because a lot of them are terrified of dreams and to this day they seem to hate being lucid. If they really understood what lucidity is why would they fear it?

This isn't the same as the lucidity you experienced (which I'm assuming was actual lucidity?)

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

@ everyone else - it looks like this is mostly just a semantics thread with everybody claiming their definitions of words are the only right ones. My goal is to actually try to make some sense of all this and maybe come to an overall understanding of the ideas behind it, not just argue definitions of words.

There are no ideas outside of words and semantics. We're attempting to discuss the topic of the OP and central to that topic is the question of lucidity and the question of naturalness.

^ Yep. I got that. But some people seem entirely focused on just a definition of a word rather than the overall ideas in the thread.

And you haven't answered my question. What terms would you suggest we use?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

No, I think you're misunderstanding what Sageous is saying. I think his point is simply that the kids who people call naturals - the ones who started from nightmares without ever learning about lucidity first - don't actually quite understand that they're in a dream. I think they experience what I was talking about - where you understand it isn't normal everyday stuff, and that you sometimes find yourself here in this weird place, but you just don't quite realize that you're asleep and dreaming.

If they did understand that, and grasp the implications of it, (< important!) then they would know they have absolutely nothing to fear from the monsters and can turn their back and do whatever they want. But apparently a lot of them never really understood that - they only learned how to wake themselves up or they came to understand that they were in a dream but failed to realize that they have nothing to fear - meaning they lacked enough awareness. Because a lot of them are terrified of dreams and to this day they seem to hate being lucid. If they really understood what lucidity is why would they fear it?

This isn't the same as the lucidity you experienced (which I'm assuming was actual lucidity?)

For the two dreams that I had in 2013, I did not understand the implications of being lucid, my awareness was low. I knew however that I was dreaming: in one of them I knew that if I clicked on the Notifications I would see a PM from gab in DV and I knew that this would work due to my expectation of it working, but I did not know that I could do whatever I wanted. For my other lucid dream this year, I knew that it was a dream and even though I was in laundry room in the dream, but if I opened my eyes I would actually be in bed, but I did not remember that waking myself up was not a good goal to achieve in a lucid dream.

20 years ago I started out with lucid dreams where I knew it was a dream because I was floating, but I believed that if I were awake I could also float. Low leve lucidity and faulty logic. I then progressed to full blown lucids after a while where I could open a stained glass window with my mind and fly into the sky and then into universe (one of my favorite LDs ever), and another favorite in which I realized I was lucid because I was being chased by dogs and ran up a wall, and so I turned around and stared the dogs down, fully expecting that this would stop them, and they turned into cardboard dogs. It was twenty years ago, so alas I do not remember many of my fully lucid dreams, but I know I had a good amount. But before that I had a large amount of barely lucid dreams. What I am saying is that if those did not count, I might have given up.

Ok, those all sound like lucid just low awareness. I wouldn't disqualify any of those from being called lucid dreams.

What a great group of DV'ers that have gathered for this discussion! Sageous, you are not alone. You convinced me that I need to strive for higher level lucids always and that some of the other "lucids" are either very low level or not a "true" lucid. I also see JoannaB's point and think beginners do need a feeling that they have achieved something but still strive on like she is obviously doing (I appreciate you both, by the way - and the others as well!). Sageous would you be okay with calling any momentary realization that it is a dream a low-level lucid which automatically lets people know that there are higher levels to attain? (Kind of like, hey good start, now try this). On the childhood topic, I did have my first LD because my Dad told me what to do...realize it was a dream and then you can defeat the monster with ease, and I did! Not a natural, of course...induced by my Dad's mini-lesson...if only I kept it up longer than I did! Unfortunately, after some adventures I took a long hiatus not long after that, forgetting about dreams for the most part/stopped recalling them for the most part. I really have some questions for my Dad. He must have learned about it in the 60's, but I never asked. My brother knows about it too and I think he took it further...I think he also was advised by my Dad, will have to verify.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok, those all sound like lucid just low awareness. I wouldn't disqualify any of those from being called lucid dreams.

...Nor would I!

JoannaB: Yes, you would hate the way I measure my own LD's, I think: Using my "Was my self-awareness really present?" as a minimum marker, I probably have about 50-60 LD's a year (these days; I had many more in the past, when my brain actually functioned); but using the minimal "I know this is a dream" measure which I agree is the standard, I could safely say I have over a thousand per year. On top of that, I have goal-based lucidity targets, and of those I might have one or two a year actually on target. So by my own measure I sort of suck at all this, I guess! But by these measures from min to max, they're all still LD's.

I do understand the value of encouragement, and would never tell a newbie who's really trying that that was not a LD because, well, it was, by actual definition. But I also would not hesitate to encourage them to understand that this sort of LD is only the beginning, and that much much more can be expected.

I hope that was clear!

P.S. Quality trumps quantity every time...

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Sageous would you be okay with calling any momentary realization that it is a dream a low-level lucid which automatically lets people know that there are higher levels to attain? (Kind of like, hey good start, now try this).

I would be okay with it, and I offer exactly the encouragement you mention. Wait; let me change that: If they have an "Ah-Ha" moment but fail to hold onto lucidity, I call that lucid every time. If they are still in the "Hmm, this might be a dream; maybe I should do a reality check" phase I'm a little more tentative, because expectations, especially among newbies, often create a situation where the dreaming mind creates this sense for you, and you "dream" that you are lucid without ever actually being so. This still happens to me, BTW.

As a matter of fact, I imagine that false lucids are far more common than people think, Though they are easily identified, I think many people don't bother, happy to think that they had a LD (this may not be a bad thing, though, as even false lucids can be encouraging. I think I talk about this in my Treatise on Proof thread, if you're interested, but suffice it to say that this is one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of calling very low-level lucidity true lucidity.

And I'll say it one more for JoannaB: True lucidity for me also includes medium-level, and even many low-level lucids -- self-awareness just needs to be peeking in the door to be lucid, it does not necessarily need to be fully in the room.

Oh, great, now I'm talking about false lucids. Next thing you know I'll be refuting dream-sharing. Might as well just kick myself in the ass right now.

Originally Posted by Sageous

this may not be a bad thing, though, as even FA's can be encouraging.

Did you mean FLD instead of FA?

For as long as I've been here (lurking since 2004), a "Natural Lucid Dreamer" has always been referred to as someone who develops the skill for lucid dreaming (whether just remembering a spontaneous lucid, or having actively built your way up to dream control) without having actually been introduced to the concept by an outside source. Pretty plain and simple.

The term, itself, can be symmantically argued until the cows come home, but unless someone can find an earlier example of a different definition for "Natural Lucid Dreamer", on this particular site, then I think we'd have to go with the precedent.

In this case, if you're already on this site, and you don't quite qualify as a 'natural' under that definition, I would imagine that it's impossible for you to become one.

Just my two cents.

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Did you mean FLD instead of FA?

Yes. Thank you!

The first experience where i was aware in a dream, i was less than 2 years old, it happened as an unintentional WILD, I remember the feeling of being rocked back and forth, even though i was still at the time, eventually i was spiraled down into a town, the colours we're so beautiful, it was like a Disney movie came to life, everything was rounded and soft looking. I knew i wasn't on earth, although I wasn't aware it was a dream, i actually remember thinking i was inside the TV. I was walking a long a cobblestone path, and I saw this beautiful iridescent butterfly, it's wings were changing through the spectrum of the rainbow as it flew, i chased after it and as I was running the path started crumbling away from beneath my feet, and i fell. When I landed, I was sitting in a spotlight with blackness all around me. I could hear things moving in the distance, I remember trying to scream, but no sound came out, so I stood up and flew to towards the light above me, when i reached it I woke up. I know this wasn't a true lucid, but it I was in full control of my actions, and was aware at the time. I didn't even really understand the concept of dreams at that age, but if I did I'm sure i would have known I was lucid. Now that I think about it, this is the earliest memory I have, strange to think that it's difficult to remember last night's dreams, but I can remember one from 20 years ago like I'm actually still there.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

For as long as I've been here (lurking since 2004), a "Natural Lucid Dreamer" has always been referred to as someone who develops the skill for lucid dreaming (whether just remembering a spontaneous lucid, or having actively built your way up to dream control) without having actually been introduced to the concept by an outside source. Pretty plain and simple.

The term, itself, can be symmantically argued until the cows come home, but unless someone can find an earlier example of a different definition for "Natural Lucid Dreamer", on this particular site, then I think we'd have to go with the precedent.

In this case, if you're already on this site, and you don't quite qualify as a 'natural' under that definition, I would imagine that it's impossible for you to become one.

Just my two cents.

... Soo, does this mean we're done here?