Thread: Why aren't we always lucid

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, we have no way to know if animals lucid dream or not.

Here's a weird thought though:

With the development of language came our ego. Our ego is the source of a lot of "unconsciousness".
Without the ego you're sorta always lucid. Always in a state of pure awareness.

However this begs the question: Is a lucid dream A) A dream in which you know it's a dream OR B) A conscious dream?
We usually go about the assumption that A and B is the same thing, but they are not. You can have a highly conscious dream and not necessarily know it's a dream.
Without ego, all dreams are highly conscious.

Therefore, lucid dreams are more natural than given credit for, if you consider option B to be the definition of a lucid dream.
The "knowing it's a dream" bit is just the surface of what a lucid dream is. The juicy, conscious bit beneath that is really natural.

Originally Posted by slash112

With the development of language came our ego. Our ego is the source of a lot of "unconsciousness".
Without the ego you're sorta always lucid. Always in a state of pure awareness...

Without ego, all dreams are highly conscious.

I see where you're coming from, but I think there's a confusion of terminology going on here. I wouldn't call the ego a source of unconsciousness - it's actually the source of consciousness. It literally is the conscious mind - the part of the mind that we're consciously aware of. Dreams are created at least mostly by or in the unconscious. Non-lucid dreams, I mean. Though to be fair, I think many animals have at least some rudimentary form of conscious awareness - just not to the same level we have.

A lucid dream is when we're able to bring some level of conscious awareness into the otherwise unconscious world of the dream. So it's actually the ego that brings the lucidity. Or rather it's the introduction of (ego) consciousness into the normally unconscious dreams.

I think the problem arises from the fact that the common popular understanding of the word ego has nothing to do with the psychological usage of it. In common usage ego means egotistical, but in psychology ego is literally the name for the conscious mind.

There's also some confusion coming from the fact that Buddhists use the word consciousness to refer to awareness, but divorced from left-brain conscious thought. So it's a sort of unconscious awareness. I THINK - though possibly it does stem from the right-brain/unconscious? We just need to be careful when we use loaded terms like this that we understand exactly what we mean by them.

Ahah yeah defos a terminology breakdown here. I have that problem a lot, with the stuff I'm interested in xD Slowly learning to overcome these hurdles though.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

There's also some confusion coming from the fact that Buddhists use the word consciousness to refer to awareness, but divorced from left-brain conscious thought. So it's a sort of unconscious awareness. I THINK - though possibly it does stem from the right-brain/unconscious? We just need to be careful when we use loaded terms like this that we understand exactly what we mean by them.

Very good point. I get very jumbled because I shift from perspective to perspective all day long.

Indeed I refer to the word consciousness as awareness. When I first seen it used that way I was like "wtf that's not consciousness", but I've gotten a bit too used to it. xD
I also use "consciousness" to refer to experience. Everything we experience is consciousness, all we know is consciousness.

Unconscious awareness is indeed a good way to describe my meaning of "highly conscious". Weirdly.

But the weird thing about this unconscious awareness is, you're aware of everything, exactly as it is. Just without the chatter and the filters we usually look through. I sometimes refer to it as "super lucidity". But I guess that's stupid when you consider lucidity to be all about the chatter.


EDIT:
So, if we're taking "lucidity" to be in relation to the head-chatter. Then lucid dreaming is indeed due to evolution. My bad. It's still natural tho. Anything your mind does is natural.

Originally Posted by slash112

So, if we're taking "lucidity" to be in relation to the head-chatter. Then lucid dreaming is indeed due to evolution. My bad. It's still natural tho. Anything your mind does is natural.

I don't think the chatter has anything to do with lucidity really - but it does come from the conscious / ego part of the mind. The left brain is the logical and linguistic part (makes it kinda easy to remember). I would say the logic part has more to do with lucidity than the language part does. The chatter is just because we have a tendency to do all our thinking through language now - we've sort of become endless chatterboxes.

But now that you've brought this up, I am very curious as to where the 'observer' is located. Is it in the conscious or the unconscious? Maybe it straddles both, or exists somehow between them? We may never know, or possibly science already has the answer and we just haven't got the memo on it yet.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I don't think the chatter has anything to do with lucidity really - but it does come from the conscious / ego part of the mind. The left brain is the logical and linguistic part (makes it kinda easy to remember). I would say the logic part has more to do with lucidity than the language part does. The chatter is just because we have a tendency to do all our thinking through language now - we've sort of become endless chatterboxes.

My mistake, I get you.

But now that you've brought this up, I am very curious as to where the 'observer' is located. Is it in the conscious or the unconscious? Maybe it straddles both, or exists somehow between them? We may never know, or possibly science already has the answer and we just haven't got the memo on it yet.

It's actually located everywhere (and nowhere). You could say the observer is outside of space and time.
It takes time to come to this realization, but you can indeed prove it to yourself.

There are functions of "observing" in the mind. Functions of "awereness". But even that awareness is perceived by the "pure awareness".
You can be aware of pure awareness by pointing your focus backwards/inwards. You either reach a "back screen of consciousness" or "the void".

You can investigate the void itself. Check it for qualities. As it turns out, it is a proper void, it has no qualities, including location.

But try for a moment to think what it is like to be "pure awareness". This helps.
In deep sleep, pure awareness is aware of nothing. We all know what that feels like, timeless and spaceless.
Awake, pure awareness sees all the activities of the mind. In the unconscious part of the mind, there's not much to experience. In the conscious part, that is where pure awareness sees thoughts and senses.
What do you think it's like for pure awareness to see a rock? Much like deep sleep I imagine.
Then it gets interesting when you start thinking about plants.

The thing about the observer is. It's not even right to say that it "observes", because that implies that it's doing something. But it doesn't do anything, it simply is. Hence you may often hear the word "is-ness" thrown around. That is-ness is all around you, it's where you're looking FROM, THROUGH, and AT. This is the point where it becomes really natural to say "it's consciousness!".

It helps to know that pure awareness is all-pervasive.

Also helps to know the non-dual truth that the pure awareness and the things which appear in it, are not two, but one. Seems like a contradiction to everything else I've said, but it's not. Nothingness and somethingness, pure awareness and the appearances, are intimately joined in a unity, like light to a TV screen.

Originally Posted by slash112

(About the Observer): It's actually located everywhere (and nowhere). You could say the observer is outside of space and time.

Wow - you just described the Self! This is exactly how Jung explained it, though it does more than just observe or be aware. It's also been described (in many traditions, starting long before Jung) as a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. A very Buddhist description now that I think about it. Of course Buddhism was one of the world wisdoms that helped Jung develop his ideas about the unconscious and its relation to the conscious Ego. He also said it seems to exist outside of space and time, because the unconscious (right brain awareness essentially) doesn't think it terms of linear time the way the left brain does. It thinks holistically and sees everything all at once. Of course this also explains ideas about God, Angels etc, for whom time as we know it does not exist and who see everything all at once and understand it all holistically. These are all simply the various names people have come up with in the past to describe the strange phenomena they observed that have a numinous - meaning divine or magical quality to them. So quite possibly meditation (and prayer) helps to constellate the Self. After all, the way to do that is to pay more attention to the unconscious.

And I realize it's probably impossible to do what I was asking about, but I was wondering where in the brain it's located - if scientists could see activity in some part of the brain when it's active.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

But now that you've brought this up, I am very curious as to where the 'observer' is located. Is it in the conscious or the unconscious? Maybe it straddles both, or exists somehow between them? We may never know, or possibly science already has the answer and we just haven't got the memo on it yet.

How about this? Without going into the dual/non-dual perspectives, which I think of as more philosophical than physical subject*, I think that there probably is no "observer center" in the brain at all. Instead the whole brain is churning away, using all its parts in a powerful enough manner that produces an individual entity -- a Self -- that can do far more than than any individual piece of the brain could do on its own. In other words, there really is no "left" or "right" brain, consciously speaking, though both sides may make unique contributions to the Self's actions, including observing.

By the same token, I really don't think of the unconscious as a unique entity that operates separately from the conscious (aka, in this context, the waking-life self); instead, it is a facet of the overall Self, contributing what it does to ensure that we're, say, observing as best we can...things like finding and routing memories, handling all the reptilian brain activity, and inspiring emotion, all of which are important to the act of observing. To separate the unconscious from our overall Self, even if you're just doing so to better understand the machinery, is to separate a deeply integral contributor to our Self that is active all the time, very much an aspect of our conscious existence, and not a separate entity making contributions when necessary. So for me it isn't so much that our Observer is straddling the unconscious and unconscious portions of our minds, but rather that we draw upon tools to make and define our observations, and two of those tools are the conscious and unconscious aspects of one mind. Rational** observation cannot happen without both aspects working together, just as, in terms of sentient awareness, neither aspect can operate completely on its own (including in dreams).

And yeah, until science learns to grasp the physically ungraspable, or builds a machine that can map and interpret a brain's activity in a holistic manner, it will likely never be able to define the roots of our self-awareness.

* Though it does tie right into the OP, since, in my opinion, a non-dual perspective is decidedly anathema to our genetic design, which is what makes it -- and LD'ing -- an unnatural perspective that can be difficult to develop and maintain.
** Simple observation, or basic awareness, can operate completely on an unconscious/autonomic level, though: a housefly exercises an enormous amount of awareness, but no one ever accused one of being self-aware, I'm pretty sure.

Originally Posted by Sageous

In other words, there really is no "left" or "right" brain, consciously speaking, though both sides may make unique contributions to the Self's actions, including observing... So for me it isn't so much that our Observer is straddling the unconscious and unconscious portions of our minds, but rather that we draw upon tools to make and define our observations, and two of those tools are the conscious and unconscious aspects of one mind. Rational** observation cannot happen without both aspects working together, just as, in terms of sentient awareness, neither aspect can operate completely on its own (including in dreams).

Well said. When I use the terms left and right brain, I do understand they aren't completely separate, and that they both in many ways do the same thing, but it's a simplified way of referring to the fact that they both operate in different ways. The left brain works 'in serial', so it computes things (if I may borrow the term) one at a time to allow a much more logical and rational analysis. This is conscious thought. The right brain method of thinking is 'in parallel', meaning it works holistically (synthesis) and doesn't separate things into pairs of opposites. I do understand though that they tap into each other and work in tandem all the time, I just use the terminology right and left brain to separate the 2 different modes of thinking, the conscious and the unconscious. Really left and right brain for me are symbols - though I suppose conscious and unconscious might be better (and less confusing) symbols. Sorry if that leads to confusion - maybe I should stop saying it that way. It just makes it easier for me to remember the way each part of the overall Self operates.

But I suppose you're right, that the observer or the Self can't be located in either the 'left or right brain', and that science is utterly incapable of locating it in the physical brain. Sort of silly of me to suggest it now that you bring it up. And sometimes I do forget that the Self is the full mind - the conscious Ego as well as the unconscious. Thanks for the reminder!

This is quite possibly the best discussion I've ever had on DV.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Wow, that is really fascinating! Is it scientifically validated? Spiritualists like Buddhists etc will often use scientific terminology but in a very loose way. I wonder if they're just saying that's the source of the Observer (etc) because it looks like the Eye of Horus?

I'm pretty sure it's all scientifically mapped out, but I don't know the details. I used to be very scientific minded, then slowly as I built my spiritual-thinking up, I found that same results can be found by spiritual-thinking as scientific-thinking, and scientific-thinking takes a lot of energy. I guess in the end I found that to be unnecessary energy to spend. But I'm a bridge builder so I gotta boost my scientific thinking again.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Without going into the dual/non-dual perspectives

Funnily enough, everything you said there works nicely with non-duality.
Indeed I like to take the perspective that the whole brain plays its part in creating that feeling of self. (I say feeling of self, to distinguish from true self). The way I see it is, *everything* makes up self. And that is the nondual truth.

But still the third eye is interesting. If you just look at your own experience and investigate your own third eye, it's very tangible. It's like you've got a floating eye that sees your sight from your two eyeballs, joined into one image. Plus if you really pay attention, you can feel the space of your other senses, and your thoughts, all being encapsulated in this one "eye".

Agreed - this is an amazing discussion.

Originally Posted by slash112

I used to be very scientific minded... But I'm a bridge builder so I gotta boost my scientific thinking again.

Yes, it's about keeping the 2 in dynamic balance. Your understanding will shift one way at times and then the other, but the point is when that happens to try to nudge it back toward holistic balance. There's a very strong tendency for each view - the logical (conscious) and the spiritual (unconscious) to each try to dominate and wage war on the other, so it can be difficult to find that balance.

Originally Posted by slash112

But still the third eye is interesting. If you just experimentally investigate your own third eye, it's very tangible. It's like you've got a floating eye that sees your sight from your two eyeballs, joined into one image. Plus if you really pay attention, you can feel the space of your other senses, and your thoughts, all being encapsulated in this one "eye".

Very true. I did some meditation for a while, and also messed with Chakra meditation and a few related things. I definitely became aware of the Observer. Very interesting what you say about it being able to see the views of both eyes merged into one. I don't really want to get into it too deep, but if you've ever heard of experiments done on split-brain patients, who had the Corpus Callosum severed (nerve bundle connecting left and right hemispheres), this is where scientific understanding about the differences between left brain and right brain thinking emerged from. And interestingly, each eye is connected to one hemisphere, though the connection is crossed (left eye connects with right hemisphere and vise versa). Fascinating stuff, but like I said, I don't want to write it all up here. Do a search if you're interested.