Questioning LD

**Umbrella** · 03-30-2006 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Suckertrain+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Suckertrain)</div>

So when you say dreams can be associated with certain things what about all the weird stuff in dreams? does every single thing associate with something you have thought before? or does the subconcious just have more imagination?[/b]

Well, your dreams are put together pretty much by your brain guessing what's going on around you (lacking any sensory input) and basing its guess on your expectations and motivations. That is, what you expect to happen (ever notice how something you expect almost always happens in dreams?) and what you want to happen (or don't want to). Because your brain is used to life being more like a logical series of events than just some random situations that change completely from time to time, it takes an object or situation you're near/in and uses the schemas I talked about in my other post so your dream can be a somewhat coherent story.
What may happen, however, is that the wrong association is made, which can make the strange things happen. For instance, when you're seeing an ocean, it might make you think of a boat, and the next thing you know, you're on a boat. Though this association is pretty obvious, sometimes it happens more indirectly, creating typical, insane dreaming situations.

On a sidenote. All these things about the schemas and expecation/motivation and stuff are from Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming (EWLD). A book by Stephen LaBerge. So at least you know I'm not just pulling this all out of my ass. I wish I was though, but probably wouldn't be capable of that. I'm not that smart. ^.^

<!--QuoteBegin-mongreloctopus
i guess he wins then

Well... f00k

pj · 03-30-2006 08:17 PM

I think Dr. LaBerge and others proved this not to be the case when they were using REM patterns to communicate from the dream state. If a person was dreaming of lucidity, then there would be a disconnect there and the eye patterns would not have been remembered or transmitted.

What we know is this: that with practice and discipline, we are capable of carrying conscious thoughts into the dream world and acting on them in predetermined ways. If lucidity itself was a dream, then the response would have been dreamed too. The response was real, and recorded under laboratory conditions.

**Umbrella** · 03-30-2006 09:32 PM

Originally posted by pj
I think Dr. LaBerge and others proved this not to be the case when they were using REM patterns to communicate from the dream state. *If a person was dreaming of lucidity, then there would be a disconnect there and the eye patterns would not have been remembered or transmitted.

What we know is this: that with practice and discipline, we are capable of carrying conscious thoughts into the dream world and acting on them in predetermined ways. *If lucidity itself was a dream, then the response would have been dreamed too. *The response was real, and recorded under laboratory conditions.

Indeed. Of course one could argue that, once dreaming they were lucid, the test subjects would move their eyes because knew they had to do so when they became lucid. This however, would mean that even if they were only dreaming of lucidity, the effect would be exactly the same. This, in turn, means it doesn't matter either. Think about it

Thread: Questioning LD

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions