Printable View
I thought some of you might enjoy the latest article on lucid dream tech in Wired magazine.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lucid-dreaming-tech
I think it's important that we all do our part to fight the growing misinformation on this topic, If you'd like to join me in doing so, come and get involved here.
Nothing like taking pride in your practice. I love the way I approach the phenomenon which shows to me, time and again, that techniques work and that inducing lucid dreams, unaided by tech, can be easy once you get the hang of it.
I find the actual article quite interesting on many levels. The majority of what is written is what many of us already know in regard to dubious technology claims and expect as in the resultant introspective escapism during lockdown.
The Novadreamer was 'state-of-the-art' back in its time, even with its flashing red LEDs. Laberge even promised (a less primitive) version 2, which is yet to see the light of day.
However, I noticed the Remee got a bit of a kicking; not once, but several times - even to the point where it seemed personal. It should be said (in mitigation) that there are many fakes out there which makes matters even worse. The aforementioned battery safety 'issue' scenario is a totally hypothetical one. It's possible? but unlikely. It's not an electric blanket in an incontinents' bed. (I speak as an engineer - I don't like to use the word 'expert' here. (Perhaps guru might suffice instead.)
You are more likely to have a problem with your mobile phone and that cheap bootleg charger bought off eBay or Amazon. This is a scenario more likely to cause an explosion or a fire.
I would be more concerned about Bluetooth devices in sleep tech? Remember eyes and microwaves do not mix!
I agree where no supplement 'guarantees' lucid dreaming; not even galantamine. (Note however Laberge did try to patent the latter and Yuschak wrote a best seller on the subject).
It should be pointed out the Remee succeeded because of the slick crowdfunding campaign initially, along with the attention-grabbing 'one liners'. (Note: The film Inception, released two years earlier captured the Zeitgeist back then.)
These clickbait tactics are still being used today, not only to sell products, but also gain followers, etc. It seems everybody is an 'expert' nowadays, or 'am I just being cynical? (Ok Boomer!)
I agree that people want 'quick fixes'. It does not help that journalistic online articles, etc. use overly 'sexed-up' language to describe lucid dreaming. For instance "HD", "VR", "The 'Netflix' of Lucid Dreams", ...etc. No wonder the average John (or Jane) Doe expects the same type simulacra type experiences - hence gravitating toward such devices.
I agree there should be community to help point people in the right direction. However, it is not like we just stood here and did nothing when all this 'crap' [tech] started appearing. For example, people like Michael Paul Coder called the makers of Luci out - Remember that one?Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielLove
On a personal level I was critical about the iWinks Aurora and the so-called tACS devices - not only on Dreamviews, but elsewhere too.
My 2 cents. :)
I have a Zmax scheduled to arrive tomorrow. I have optimism for this device, was very impressed with it's technology and talking a bit with Curzio.
Using JavaScript, I'm planning on piggybacking the devices unmatched ability to detect REM with 40hz Gamma brainwave entrainment (light and audio). Ursula Voss had already had very promising results with transdermal stimulation in this Hertz range, showing 70% of inexperienced participants having lucid dreams.
https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/...rigger-042342/
Generally speaking, I wouldn't put it past technology to (eventually) crack the code, we've already accomplished much greater technological feats with common everyday devices.
"We're all working together to bring lucid dreaming to a wider audience."
This actually sounds creepy to me. Like some kind of cult trying to convert the world to their practice. I'm not. So please don't include me in this "we're" trying to bring lucid dreaming to the world thing. I'm not trying to convert the world to anything.
I interpret that statement entirely differently, and really only see it as them trying to make lucid dreaming more accessible.
While I will admit that there is something appealing about LDing not being a commodity, or so commonplace that there is nothing 'special' about it -- overall, I find the experience just too amazing to, in good conscience, think it should remain something only an exclusive few can do (relatively speaking).
I'm all for it. People doing more self-discovery, people having a greater sense of wonder and magic in their lives, the general public being more creative and introspective, etc. It all sounds good to me.
I agree people should have that kind of magic and wonder in their life, I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying it's not up to me to be on some mission to try and convince the people of the world that they should. I'm pretty sure everyone knows what dreams are, people are either interested in them or they are not. That's on the individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUncanny
Ah, I see what you mean. Totally agree with that 👍
Just out of curiosity I simply typed in the word dreams into my Bing search engine. The first thing that came up was an article describing what a lucid dream is... Anyone with even the slightest interest or curiosity about their dreams can do the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUncanny
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream
This is where the unfollow button comes in handy I find. We are just numbers after all. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream
I get a place that makes beds. :cackle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caradon
Hate to burst everyone's love bubble, I don't know about validity of the nova dreamer but it's known that the pineal gland detects light through closed eyelids and devices have been made which stimulate it in such a way that it enables the brain to produce DMT. I can't remember the name of that particular device, but people rave on about it a lot because it works and they experience equivalent of ingesting DMT when using it. All this just from some flashing lights over the eyes, sounds crazy but it does in fact work. With this in mind, I see no reason why Nova Dreamer wouldn't work, and as Stephen Laberge described, it works more like a DILD technique in that you need to recognize the light sequence while sleeping for it to induce a lucid dream.
I would read the article in the link, but unfortunately a warning message pops up asking to accept cookies. And while I do love a good cookie every now and then, when you ingest this one it can scan precise geo-location and obtain your identification from your computer. Thanks, but no thanks.
Spoiler for warning:
It's a Lucia N°03 Hypnagogic Light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonnn
Just got the zMax from Hypnodyne
https://i.ibb.co/z4xzB8X/PXL-20210120-232350555.jpg
I can't remember, might have been it not sure. My mate showed me one time, would have to ask him again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander
Quite the contrary my friend, if anything not enough time! and you need to spend more time on them! Just because you fail to see it and have an open mind doesn't make it unreal, only those with eyes to see will see it. We have 2 for vision, and one to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielLove
Just because science hasn't advanced enough to understand it yet, doesn't make it untrue. Can't base entire life on science when science doesn't even fully understand consciousness or our place in reality and how it works. Many great scientists like Einstein and Tesla, believed in more than just science, there are many quotes from both of them which go beyond science into a more philosophical nature. They both used science as a means to understand everything, because they knew there is more to everything than what science understand or accepted as fact at the time, and wanted to prove it using science as the method for validation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonnn
"don't believe everything you read on the internet" - Einstein.
(In other words, most of the quotes you believe are likely made by these people are fakes posted on new-age Instagram pages that don't check their sources)
Anyway, if Dreamviews is anything like it used to be, I think you'll find you'll need to take these beliefs to the "beyond dreaming" section.
But no, neither DMT or the pineal glad work as you claim they do, you're basically regurgitating misinformation that is easily disproven, but popular among the pseudo-science crowd. I'm sorry but I just don't have the time to argue this with you, but the information is all easily available. But here's a video that covers a few points.
uh huh, nice assumption there, don't assume because it makes an ass of u and me.
"Assumptions are made, and most assumptions are wrong" ~Einstein
So we don't produce DMT when we are born or die? when we sleep each night? people don't experience common themes when taking DMT? we should just ignore this and consider it all hallucination or delusion? correct me if I'm wrong but if it's a delusion then why the common shared similarities between multiple accounts from different people... surely if it was pure hallucinatory the experience would differ from person to person with only slight commonalities randomly here and there. Also, consider the fact we don't experience reality directly, it's all just a perception created inside our brain of what our senses tell us reality to be. The image you see right now of reality is actually a mental representation in your brain and not the actual reality. If you don't question things, or question reality, you will struggle with lucid dreaming and many other things too.
But I digress...
Yes Einstein was very wise indeed, hence why I don't believe everything I read on the internet (which includes your posts), and instead I learn from my own experiences and experiments and study sources not limited to just the internet.
I don't think we're not allowed to talk about pseudo-sceience or spirituality outside of beyond dreaming. I just think posts that get created around those subjects are supposed to be there. Heck, I talk about spirituality all the time.... haven't gotten in trouble yet ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielLove
Daniel and Eonnn, it's okay to have a different views on the issue. It's important that we accept that others are going to disagree (and be respectful). And, we need to accept that they may not base their ideas on mainstream science, and that's OK. We all have brains, and we can judge for ourselves what to believe. What one sees as misinformation, another sees as subjective truth.
Ah, I see Dreamviews has considerably lowered it's standards over the years. It used to have a very strict policy to keep speculative spirituality confined to beyond dreaming, in order to not fall into the trap that almost all dream forums fall into, namely being overrun with vague assumptions and "spiritual" debates over unprovable assertions.
Anyway, this thread is being derailed considerably, as is often the case when pseudo-science gets involved. Which is why, I'd imagine, those rules were originally implemented.
Either way, if DV is becoming one of "those" spaces, I can see why it's lost its popularity among the more rational minded dreamers. It certainly doesn't appeal to me.
The simple fact regarding DMT is that what Eonn is saying is easily proven to be entirely out of touch with evidence. It's not a case of "all subjective truths are equal", that's just a wonderful way to build a space where nothing of value is discussed, and it becomes just some kind of hierarchical in-group where everyone sycophantically agrees with whatever is said. Personally, I think if someone's argument can't stand a little criticism, it's not a valid argument. And to take that personally is a very odd.
As someone who has been a part of this community since the very start, it really is apparent that there is an air of sugar-coated hostility going on in these forums recently. It's very unpleasant from the perspective of someone just popping back in to share a few thoughts.
I'll say, thanks but no thanks, to you MoonageDaydream, I don't buy into happy-clappy let's all agree with everyone all the time mentality. It's a sure-fire way to sit on the fence so hard that you split yourself in two. It also leads to this kind of bubbling poorly hidden resentment that comes across as passive-aggressive, that is just bubbling under the surface of the "try to be nice to everyone" posts.
I remember now why I stopped getting involved in conversations here. I'll stick with occasionally sharing posts relevant to the subject for those lurkers here who are more interested in the subject than the politics of the forum and the personal beliefs of individual members.
I don't know about current Dreamviews policy as such. However the moderators should consider adding a post 'dislike' button in future.
Daniel, not everybody is going to agree, period. That's how forums work. All this is in my opinion is a mountain made from a molehill. It's not like Eonnn wrote a dissertation on DMT and the role of the pineal gland. He was not trying to indoctrinate, convert or spam anybody by adding links to a website selling mp3s or ayahuasca.
Rather than use virtue signalling and apply the fanboi science crusade, you could have just answered 'Melatonin' for starters.
I think it was unfair that you singled out MoonageDaydream for criticism either. She tried to unify the situation. Indeed at the start of this thread she called you out, rather than sit on the fence.
Maybe we can all agree to disagree. Good luck.
You mean, people politely disagreeing? Personally, I don't think either of the alternatives, swearing and cursing at one another, or forcing oneself to agree with something one does not agree with, are in any way attractive.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielLove
In this world, and in this forum, there are hard-core materialism fanboys*, and there are equally hard-core spiritual seekers, and there are those who haven't been swayed by either side yet. We're all entitled to speak our minds, and if we are such inclined, and able to do so, we may prove that we are right. We may also abstain from providing such proof, and that is obviously what all of us, your self included, practically do.
*Whether or not this is polite is admittedly open for debate; it was not meant to be sugar-coated.
Thank you, I appreciate this comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander
Daniel, I am not saying you should agree with everything and everyone. Let me be clear: I am saying that you should disagree respectfully. That means not attacking another person's character or using aggressive speech. It means allowing them to have the space to be different from you, while maintaining your own opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielLove
Not to escalate the situation, but there are demonstrable truths that apparently manifest in objective reality regardless of subjective interpretations.
To bring some clarity here, as I see it—take it or leave it—and I do see the point about staying neutral at all costs being unhelpful (but), is that I see in this particular case valid points as well as perhaps prematurely jumping the gun on both sides.
The rigour to ascertain what the facts are should always remain, hence science and reason, regardless of what we would like to be true about reality—otherwise we are lost and won't progress. Science is not a reservoir of complete knowledge; it is only a method of enquiry in our attempt to determine what is true and empirically verifiable.
We can verify that, for example, Einstein never lived long enough to witness Internet domination, ergo, Einstein never said 'Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.' In a similar vein, I have a collection of essays by Einstein proving that he was actually an atheist despite the fact that he did say, 'God does not play dice.' (Only he was not talking about any sort of religious god at all, he poetically meant the laws of physics.)
We should also remember Karl Popper's rule: If a theory is not falsifiable, it remains hypothetical. Yes, it could be true that the universe is made of tiny little strings, but if you can never show this to be the case, it is worth jack. Daniel Love's strongest point resides here.
Now, I have read Rick Strassman's DMT: The Spirit Molecule and there are indeed some parallels between lucid dreaming and DMT trips as reported by numerous subjects in the lab. There is good evidence suggesting that endogenous DMT from the pineal gland is involved in constructing our entire perception of this world and who knows what else. More research is required and we shouldn't jump the gun here either way.
If we start going down a stringent epistemological path—questioning what we can claim to know with the senses, then we are forced into a humble corner. We don't see the world directly. This is Eonnn's strongest point. We see a mental model.
If we ask, 'What does the world really look like?', we must logically 'answer' with 'To whom?' The bat perceives a world of echolocation. The bumblebee detects frequencies of light which are invisible to us. A dog's world is, according to the conic receptors in his eyes, virtually colourless—albeit rich in smells.
Einstein's strongest argument: It is all relative.
There is also, a way in which to disagree, indeed. And show the person why. I don't think the truth is that hidden. MoonageDaydream's brilliant point. And we must also seek to be honest with ourselves. How much can we really claim to know?
Hi Summerlander,
I wouldn't mind seeing those Einstein essays proving him to be atheist.
I've heard someone quote him once saying when asked the meaning of life or nature of reality he said "I'm not sure... ask Tesla"
The poster was implying Einstein gained much of his knowledge from Tesla, and that Tesla is the real genius here not Einstein.
They both lived around the same period of time, so it's not completely unfathomable.
So if you have essays to share, please do! Perhaps in a completely new topic though or a PM.
Anyway, I have moved on from this topic nothing more to say, and it would be pointless to continue any further discussion with Daniel as he seems unable to understand from another's perspective. Not worth wasting time trying to convince people that aren't ready to hear this type of thing or willing to entertain the idea. What Voldmer, Highlander and Moonage Dream have said, I can agree with and are totally valid points.
Daniel Love is more than welcome here. If the owners minded the linking they would deal with it. It seems like at least three of you were casting bad vibes on him for making a thread, something I wish more people would do (make threads).
Eonnn, I think your claim about the DMT device would need a link to some sort of article to be considered much. In this case you did come across as claiming knowledge in a subject that needs some sort of supportive info. That is ok. I have no problem that you bring it up, but am just trying to break down what happened here.
Daniel Love, Thanks for posting a new thread, sorry I did not realize what was going on to derail it. To clarify, Beyond Dreaming is there for topics that are in the mystic/ new age category, but members can certainly bring up such topics in other threads IF it is not off-topic. Eonnn was talking about some sort of dream device and then responding to related comments, so I am not calling those off topic. What was off topic and not ok was all the stuff about spamming directed at you. I assume that is the source of your aggressive responses, not so much the fact that it got kind of far from science.
I am moving the posts about spamming out of Daniel's thread to the lounge. https://www.dreamviews.com/senseless...ml#post2240690
Hi, Eonnn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonnn
I have hard copies of what he wrote, as well as an excerpt in The Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitches, which includes evidence for Darwin's agnosticism with quotes from his book The Descent of Man, so I can't provide you with a weblink at the moment; but I will briefly mention a legitimate quote from Einstein from what he wrote:
'I do not believe in a personal god ...'
Which is basically saying, as a scientist and with a straight face, that no evidence has been found for a creator of the universe who had us in mind. So, in science, God remains only hypothetical.
I have heard that indeed he praised his contemporary Tesla—undoubtedly a highly intelligent, inventive and creative lucid dreamer. An autopsy on Einstein's brain also revealed more glial cells than the average person—and Einstein also paid attention to dreams for insight.
Hi again Summerlander, are you able to upload them? It just seems like a waste to hold onto something Einstein wrote as a hard copy and not have it available to share on the net.
I also don't particularly believe a personal god like what is often depicted of a zeus-like male figure resting in the clouds, but I do believe in an unbiased source of creation, or an infinitely vast spirit beyond our measurable reality that permeates through everything. Einstein saying he doesn't believe in a personal god, could be interpreted same as me saying I don't believe in a personal god - I believe in god yes, but not exactly a personal one. Einstein certainly had a way with words, so him saying it like that, could have just been to throw people off and appear more accepted in the scientific community, as science seems to care little about studying anything remotely considered supernatural or paranormal, and often just label it pseudo-science, or call people names for believing in it. Yet, if they spent more time investigating and developing ways to study it, they would make more scientific progress than ever made before in a much shorter amount of time.
Summerlander, FYI
I found this straight after I replied when looking for that quote "I do not believe in a personal god"
Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman.
Einstein makes a clear statement that he doesn't believe in a personal God and that any statements to the contrary are misleading. Instead, the mysteries of the universe are enough for him to contemplate.
Having formal philosophical training, some of which in the area of Logic, I think it's important to remember that looking to notable individuals for wisdom and knowledge has value, but should always be seen with a grain of salt.
Attributing validity/soundness to a concept simply because of who said it is to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, or "appealing to authority". In reality, 2+2=4 is just as true coming from a student as it is coming from Einstein -- and so a concept either has merit (or doesn't) of it's own accord, and isn't more or less true depending on who is stating that concept. This is particularly true when it comes to ideas that are large and on the fringe of human understanding.
That said, whether Einstein was or was not an atheist seems irrelevant unless there is something more than a reputation giving it considerably. You'll see this tactic used all over social media -- a statement made using the person quoted as an implied justification of its truthfulness.
For anyone thinking these guys have also gone off topic, keep in mind Daniel opened up the question of whether Psudoscience is worth considering. If anyone wants to discuss the OP that is good, but this stuff seems like an reasonable extension of the thread creators comments.
Well, "worth" is a value statement relative to something else, and can change depending the context of its application.
If that context is strictly scientific or empirical in nature, as seems to be representative of Daniel's stance, then the worth of pseudoscience might not be that much -- perhaps only as much as it can lead to empirical study and discovery.
That said, if the context is spiritual or supernatural in nature, as seems to be representative of Eonnn's stance, the value (or "worth") changes, as it's now relative to something else.
This disagreement seems to be, at least in part, due to two people assuming different contexts, but approaching the discussion as if there is only one context to consider. Happens all the time, but the discussion won't go anywhere so long as the individuals don't calibrate on what the framework of the discussion should be.