Thread: Credit for discovery of lucid dreaming

A bit off-topic, but since sloth mentioned it:

Why does LaBerge holds all the attentions? It's not like he was the first one to prove lucid dreaming is real, but whenever we talk about the first scientific proof, it's always his one (and only his name) that pops up The credit should go to the person who makes the discovery, not the one who gets it peer-reviewed.

Actually, LaBerge is the man credited with scientifically proving lucid dreaming for the first time. So in terms of scientific process, he is scientist zero, the discoverer. Peer review is confirmation of discovery in our slightly mixed up bureaucratic westerm system of recording scientific knowledge. LD'ing, BTW, doesn't fit in this system well, though, as it was "discovered" at least once by pretty much everyone alive, likely from as far back as when we were recording our science on cave walls. It's been known for as long as we've known ourselves, and likely was perfected as an art centuries ago.

Still iff topic: The part that really bugs me about LaBerge is that the only thing he did was (meagerly) prove that LD'ing is scientifically valid, That, and invent the terms MILD, DILD, and WILD (he still regrets that name; too catchy), which basically modernize activities that have been around for centuries. He really hasn't added any else to the art or the term, aside maybe from making the gallantamine connection.

I bet he chuckles whenever he hears someone call him a PsychoPhysiologist, though!



P.S.: This thread's starting to remind me of a support group session...

I'd still think people should replace LaBerge by Keith Hearne when we're talking about proving lucid dreaming. Afair, the credit in science goes to the first person who discovers it, not to the first person who get's it peer-reviewed. If not, it sounds unfair, Hearne didn't have LaBerge's luck at finding acceptance (or attention) to his discovery. But the first person to prove lucid dreaming in a lab will be always Keith Hearne, a person mostly anonymous to the lucid dream community :x

In the modern lucid dreaming talk, LaBerge is famous due the amount of public knowledge he transmitted to the public. We can't really deny he was the person who most diffused lucid dreaming around the world. Even if now the lucidity institute is a ghost of it's past But gotta admit that the man worked pretty hard - just not in research, more on publicity for the field.

Not to discredit anyone, as I am certainly no expert. But it should be noted..

Lucid Dreaming

The earliest recorded lucid dreams date back to as early as the fifth century, in fact, the record came from a written letter by St. Augustine in 415 A.D. Another well- known record of lucid dreaming came in the eighth century came from Tibetan Buddhists in their Tibetan Book of the Dead. The Buddhists spoke of a form of yoga designed to maintain full waking consciousness while in the dream state. These ancient dream yogis possessed an unequivocal understanding of dreams, which was said to be more advanced than the knowledge we posses today.

Good one Sloth, always nice to know a bit more of the story. The book Are you dreaming? By Daniel love has a pretty detailed description of all lucid dream mentions throughout history.

Oh, and there's also a reference (without them really knowing) as to why we don't become lucid every night in Freud's book Interpretation of dreams. Small pearl ^^

Originally Posted by zoth00

Good one Sloth, always nice to know a bit more of the story.

Hear that, guys? I'm smrt!
You're alright, zoth.

The discussion of who the first scientist is to prove lucid dreaming reminds me of who invented the light bulb - hint: Edison is not the only correct answer.

The ancient egyptians. Duh. The crazy haired dude on the History Channel, a credible and trusted source of information, told me so. He said that they got the technology from aliens.

Originally Posted by sloth

The ancient egyptians. Duh. The crazy haired dude on the History Channel, a credible and trusted source of information, told me so. He said that they got the technology from aliens.

I am thinking this point does not help us establish our credibility. Remember, this thread at least in part was about whether we are all just a bunch of nut jobs who have this giant conspiracy going on to convince poor newbies that lucid dreaming is real.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

The discussion of who the first scientist is to prove lucid dreaming reminds me of who invented the light bulb - hint: Edison is not the only correct answer.

There's no ambiguity here: Keathe was the first one to scientifically provide evidence. LaBerge only got famous due having his paper peer-reviewed first, which doesn't chance anything. There's no 2 correct answers in this case

Originally Posted by JoannaB

I am thinking this point does not help us establish our credibility. Remember, this thread at least in part was about whether we are all just a bunch of nut jobs who have this giant conspiracy going on to convince poor newbies that lucid dreaming is real.

lol Oh yeah!
That was a joke.
Sorry.

Zoth:

Here's the real question/point in all this:

Does it really matter who scientifically proved a thing that pretty much any kid under the age of ten will tell you they've experienced it? Does it really matter whether it was LaBerge or Keathe who gets the credit proving a thing that they both knew was a part of so many people's lives already? It's like having to peer review the existence of fire, for God's sake.

Just because LD'ing, for its resistance to experimentation, never fit nicely into the lexicon of accepted science doesn't mean it never existed until Keathe or LaBerge "discovered" it. It just means that science has its limits.

So give the award to Keathe, Zoth; LaBerge has so dropped the ball these last few years he really doesn't deserve the accolades anyway. In the end it really doesn't matter, because in a few hours I will know I am dreaming, regardless of what anyone else says, or who reviewed those words.

Originally Posted by sloth

lol Oh yeah!
That was a joke.
Sorry.

You know, part of me thinks that a giant conspiracy to convince newbies that something fake is real would be a hilarious joke though. Wa ha ha ha. Perhaps we could conspire right now? Oh, wait a minute, can't do that since the newbies are reading this thread as well. Never mind.

Does it really matter who scientifically proved a thing that pretty much any kid under the age of ten will tell you they've experienced it? Does it really matter whether it was LaBerge or Keathe who gets the credit proving a thing that they both knew was a part of so many people's lives already? It's like having to peer review the existence of fire, for God's sake.

The who is simply a matter of respect, like you'd give recognition to a scientist that worked and made contributions to the field. Just like we credit techniques to their creators.

Just because LD'ing, for its resistance to experimentation, never fit nicely into the lexicon of accepted science doesn't mean it never existed until Keathe or LaBerge "discovered" it. It just means that science has its limits.

Existence is not the question here, it's scientific recognizance. "Why is that important zoth? If you know lucid dream is real do you really need scientists to prove it for you?" No, but no one can deny that a scientific approach only brought positive things into it. Not only we can now start widening it's impact on terms of usage - we're talking about people who can benefit from it in health problems or individual performance -, but we can also develop more accurate understanding about it's principles, which allows us to refine the techniques. The WILD after a certain amount of sleep; MILD; immobility for recall; dream control: all these developed through experimentation, trial and error, and repeated testing, all things that make each of us scientists. We found substances that help us lucid dream, we even develop machines. It's not by chance that lucid dreaming had it's bloom during the 80s-90s: science is responsible for it.

I'm not a fan of peer-reviewing, but I'm a fan of sucking up the negative things about science (like "we must not claims things as fact until we confirm them), because they are outweighed by far by the positive things it brings, since it's so far our best tool to explore the universe. You had all those years to develop your lucid dream skills, had to find things for yourself, do all the testing. Now imagine the current and future generations who will have access to a increasing source of "tested, reviewed, reliable" knowledge that will shorten the learning curve.

^^ Okay Zoth, you got me.

Everything you wrote is spot on true. Scientific proof of LD'ing, with its imprimatur of truth and its potential as a seeder of future knowledge and practical innovation, is a very important driver for the field. Indeed, that brief spark of scientific interest in LD'ing (and consciousness) back in the '90's certainly helped clear many new paths to successful LD'ing like gallantamine and the NovaDreamer (both brought to us by LaBerge, BTW). Plus, the rise of the Internet (not science, I suppose, but based in it) has created a chance for young dreamers to realize they are not alone, which I would have valued deeply a few decades ago.

However, with the exception of MILD, and the act of giving them names, science had very little to do with the development of techniques. WILD and DILD (not techniques, BTW, but conscious events) have been experienced for a very long time. Not that that matters, of course, because for me the current overwhelming attention to techniques is likely a hindrance to newbies, not a help -- in a sense, all these endless and often specious rules and regulations surrounding techniques are preventing the curious from becoming scientists and experimenting; all many do is follow the instructions and get pissed when they get it wrong. I also have seen first hand what "organized" science can do to an idea, so I too am not much of a fan of peer review, or grants, or tenure, or, for that matter, pride in discovery and the odd possessives that get attached to it.

Bottom line is, in terms of science's role in all this, you are absolutely right. I was never much concerned about credit -- I rarely congratulate Mr. Benz when I go for a drive, or Mr. Tesla when I flip on a light switch, either, though they certainly deserved credit somewhere along the line (although, now that I think of it, the fact that I know these guys' names a century later sort of makes your point for you). But that doesn't matter either . In terms of the aims of this thread, and the context of your complaint about LaBerge getting all the credit, you are correct.

The trouble, and the reason I should never have posted here in the first place, is that I don't care. We talk often of my age, and the fact that I was doing all this stuff when LaBerge was still trying to pick a major in college. I think that time to myself has helped me to not care about details that do little more than provide a bit of nomenclature to what I've known, and many many others have known, for a very long time. To me, the scientific backdrop to LD'ing is little more than so much trivia. That is to me, and it was unfair and mildly rude of me to project that scrap of ego onto this thread; sorry!

I fear that all that work on my own might have made me a little selfish, arrogant, or both. The time I spent honing my own skills taught me one thing, though: successful advanced LD'ing has nothing to do with science, techniques, or what others think of you. All the techniques, pills, and machines in the world won't give you LD's ... that task is up to you and you alone. Yeah, science might manage to clear a few trees and rocks, but you still gotta build your own road. Self-awareness is not a quantitative function, period.

Anyway, Zoth, you were right, and I should have let you be. Where you were going matters a lot, especially on this thread. Sometimes I think I spend my entire existence out of context.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Zoth:

Here's the real question/point in all this:

Does it really matter who scientifically proved a thing that pretty much any kid under the age of ten will tell you they've experienced it? Does it really matter whether it was LaBerge or Keathe who gets the credit proving a thing that they both knew was a part of so many people's lives already? It's like having to peer review the existence of fire, for God's sake.

Just because LD'ing, for its resistance to experimentation, never fit nicely into the lexicon of accepted science doesn't mean it never existed until Keathe or LaBerge "discovered" it. It just means that science has its limits.

So give the award to Keathe, Zoth; LaBerge has so dropped the ball these last few years he really doesn't deserve the accolades anyway. In the end it really doesn't matter, because in a few hours I will know I am dreaming, regardless of what anyone else says, or who reviewed those words.

It only matters if one is interested in knowing such things. I do not believe that zoth was attempting to satisfy the thread itself with this info. It seems that it was just a related, interesting fact.

^^ I agree.

I'm pretty sure my subsequent post backs that up, so I'll say no more.

What I am really happy about is the fact that scientists like LaBerge are finally managing to bring back to the Western world knowledge it had forgotten after it embarked on the long road of scientific discovery. Like a TCM practitioner once said, Western medicine that developed in the last few centuries is now discovering medical components that have been traditionally used for thousands of years. The same can be said about LDs, surely they have been around for as long as we have been sleeping. (So like, forever?)

Finally, with movies like the matrix, inception, etc. this is going mainstream, though not in a completely scientific way. After movies like these we allow ourselves again to dream of new realms, and with places like DV we can get all the help and inspiration we will ever need. The only thing that is required now is for us to remain persistent, curious and enthusiastic about the journey that is ahead.

Originally Posted by Sageous

All the techniques, pills, and machines in the world won't give you LD's ... that task is up to you and you alone.

Totally agree with that! This is perhaps the bottom line.

Originally Posted by NyxCC

This is perhaps the bottom line.

It is.

I'm a bit late to this conversation but I'd like to point out that Keith Hearne did get his paper peer reviewed. Also has anyone else noticed the fact that Keith Hearne sent his research to one of the professors at Stanford, the same place where LaBerge was studying and then "just so happened to do the same research" a few years later. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I agree with others here though, both were only picking up where others had left off. In the book"Are You Dreaming?" it mentions that Celia Green had come up with the idea of the experiment years before either of them, I expect both had read her book too. Even she was late to the game, as sloth said, it's been around a lot longer!

I do agree with Zoth though, when it comes to credit for the experiment it should go to Keith.

Ok I'll say it, Joseph Swan!
What do I win?

These posts were moved out of this thread. http://www.dreamviews.com/attaining-...issed-off.html

Originally Posted by Sageous

Still off topic: The part that really bugs me about LaBerge is that the only thing he did was (meagerly) prove that LD'ing is scientifically valid, That, and invent the terms MILD, DILD, and WILD (he still regrets that name; too catchy), which basically modernize activities that have been around for centuries. He really hasn't added any else to the art or the term, aside maybe from making the gallantamine connection.
I bet he chuckles whenever he hears someone call him a PsychoPhysiologist, though!
P.S.: This thread's starting to remind me of a support group session...

The thing that puzzles me about Laberge is that most of his stuff still seems to be back in the 90's...at least, that's how it seemed after an (admittedly) quick look at the Lucidity Institute website. I know he has seminars etc and looks for volunteers but would it be fair to say that most stuff we read today still harks back to those days. Also, whatever happened to his Mark2 special glasses? They still seem to be below the horizon after rumours of possible release in 2011 and 2012

Am I wrong in considering dream research as a possible ground-breaking science? If so, it's not moving very fast at all. I was reading a post by Chase about REM cycles and he's so right what he says...there seems so much vagueness about exactly how long each one is and how much variance etc Also, I think that, if some bright spark (maybe in the Bill Gates mould) invented a really efficient dream-inducer, at the right price, it could go off like a rocket...and it might be the only way old buggers like me maybe get to "elucidate"