Thread: Lucid Dreaming: Expanding Your Mind Or Hurting It?

Originally Posted by Follower

We probably were never meant to be able to LD. Dreams are needed for reducing stress, or at least there's a theory that they are, and our mind might resent our interruption of the process
So I guess it would be close to the truth to say that extensive LDing is dangerous. Thankfully, it's too hard to master LDing to the point when it takes up too much sleep time and becomes dangerous.[/b]

You are all arguing that dreams are dangerous.... well, you can't use a bunch of crappy reasons (more on this below) and then say... "uh... prove me wrong!" I can't say, "There is a boogeyman" and then ask you to prove me wrong. The person who makes the claim has to provide the evidence. And your "EVIDENCE" is... "dreams MIGHT be used for reducing stress, and based on that possibility, our mind MIGHT resent our interruption of the process. Based on that "possible" conclusion based on that "possibility", you would "guess it would be close to the truth to say that extensive LDing is dangerous."

To be honest, that's not a very convincing argument to me. Wow, you can take a theory that is not proven, come to an unsupported conclusion that "might" be true. And from that conclusion that might be true based on the theory that is not proven, you come to the theory "Lding is dangerous" which is "close to the truth." Did I forget that you said that people can't in fact master LDing (wait, I mean "might not be able to master") to the point at which they become dangerous, basically debunking your own argument. Now, do you still support that as a valid argument?

I believe the thread starter wanted to hear opinions on the topic of why we don't LD naturally, not why it's bad for easily impressed people to read her thread [/b]

A) It's a discussion forum. The entire basis of it is a controversy of opinions. I could start a topic "why does metal come from trees?" I guess it wouldnt' be appropriate for someone to come in and say "It's not" based on your logic, huh?

B) Read the rest of my post. That was one point -- that people who accept stuff easily might have a harder time LDing if they think that. My main point was to say that LDing is not actually a restraint of the mind. Don't pretend that my entire post's point was one small point I made.

Let me ask you, does YOUR mind wants you to LD? Then why do you have normal dreams? It's so easy to LD that you can be lucid all the time, no matter what your mind wants or not... Why do you have to struggle to keep lucidity using hard techniques that are difficult to employ? Just think 'it's easy!', change your mindset accordingly, and you'll be able to turn all your normal dreams into lucid ones, thus thwarting your resisting mind! [/b]

I never said that I had lucids all the time, nor did I say realizing that they are easy make you have lucids all the time. I simply said that saying that your mind doesn't want you to lucid dream makes it HARDER. Please, please learn to read my entire post and comprehend it. Basically, I did not say realizing that that lucid dreaming is easy makes lucid dreams come all the time, I said believing that lucid dreaming is hard makes lucid dreaming come much less.

Originally Posted by Follower

^^^Proof?

Two people got in there faster than I could add this! Anyway, again I don't think that LD is harmful, but have you actually seen any studies showing no harmful effects? [/b]

Another great argument (hint: sarcasm). If someone makes a claim that LDing is dangerous, than it is their responsibility to provide studies that show that there are harmful effects, not for the other side to show studies where there were no harmful effects.

And about Lucid dreaming in "Evolution" and "Natural Selection"

And on an evolutionary level, LDing has no real benefit one way or the other. It seems to me like it is one of those traits such as the ability to rol your tounge or attached/unattached earlobes. Neither seem to have an advantage. In regards to lack of sex drive because of lucid dreaming all the time... that is laughable. When you were a teenager having a sex dream, did you wake up and say "I am no longer horny!" You really believe that having sex in a dream would make people less horny? It is more likely the oppossite!

You can say that LDing provides "insightful" benefits as much as you want, but how does this benefit towards natural selection or your rate of survival? Okay, let's say in your lucid dream you discover something deep about yourself that you wouldn't have found out otherwise. How does this at all benefit toward natural selection. As said before, prehistoric women wouldnt' say (though an assumption... it's pretty damn obvious) "Wow, I really appreciate Todd's ability to know himself and understand his inner workings and subconcious. I am going to reproduce with him instead of Bob, the strong man who doesn't lucid dream." Secondly, you are forgetting the most important part of natural selection - the ability to pass down traits. Who ever said lucid dreaming is a genetic trait? If you are supporting lucid dreaming as a process of natural selection, you have to prove that it is a genetic trait that can be passed down.

I agree with everything Ataraxis said. Very well put.

Ditto.

Yeah I agree, even the part saying it isn't an evolotionary trait. But I definatly agree that LD'ing is not dangerous.

ataraxis, you should really take a little time out to cool down before you write your posts. (I noticed it was pretty emotionally charged)

Guess I'll try and defend my points a bit :

In regards to lack of sex drive because of lucid dreaming all the time... that is laughable. When you were a teenager having a sex dream, did you wake up and say "I am no longer horny!" You really believe that having sex in a dream would make people less horny? It is more likely the opposite![/b]

First off, I was pretty offended when I read the highlighted portion. I don't think that was necessary.

Secondly, In saying: "A caveman that LDed about sex all night would have almost no real life sex drive", I was referring to him having little initiative to work for the love of the women of his tribe.
I was only speaking from experience here (both mine, and others I've talked to), when I was having sex lucidly on a nightly basis I lost all drive to impress my real life female counterparts. Yes, they would make me horny when I thought about them ( ), but there was never that "drive" to make them want me.
Instead, that particular drive was replaced with the want/need to sleep longer in order to have more lucid sex.

So yeah, I was speaking from my personal experience there.

Who ever said lucid dreaming is a genetic trait? If you are supporting lucid dreaming as a process of natural selection, you have to prove that it is a genetic trait that can be passed down.[/b]

I based my assumption that its genetic on various naturals telling me that either their parents or grandparents are naturals as well. (this was purely an assumption of course)

Another possible (note: "possible") piece of evidence is why some people lucid dream naturally. That is, they're minds don't go into the semi retarded state that we normal people experience in all our non LDs. (I'm talking about real naturals here, the people that don't have normal dreams). This particular detail leads me to think that its not something caused by the environment, but a screw up/ slight abnormality/ imbalance of chemicals in the brain (A genetically passed trait, like schizophrenia).
I'm not claiming that theres evidence to support that its an evolved trait, I'm just telling you why I think it is.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

And your "EVIDENCE" is... "dreams MIGHT be used for reducing stress, and based on that possibility, our mind MIGHT resent our interruption of the process. Based on that "possible" conclusion based on that "possibility", you would "guess it would be close to the truth to say that extensive LDing is dangerous." [/b]

I use 'might' so much because I want to be precise. So if there's a slight chance that something can be misunderstood, I use that word. If you must know, REM sleep deprivation can cause mental illness by chemical imbalance, it can lead to clinical depression and alike 'effects'. But for a mentally ill person REM sleep works differently, REM sleep deprivation reduces their stress instead and is used to help them. So this is a mysterious thing, yes, but REM sleep is significant, and its significance is not just some 'theory'. It helps to reduce stress, but as mysterious as it is, in some cases (like depressed people) it can be harmful instead. This is why you can't say that REM always reduces stress

Originally Posted by ataraxis

To be honest, that's not a very convincing argument to me. Wow, you can take a theory that is not proven, come to an unsupported conclusion that "might" be true. And from that conclusion that might be true based on the theory that is not proven, you come to the theory "Lding is dangerous" which is "close to the truth." Did I forget that you said that people can't in fact master LDing (wait, I mean "might not be able to master") to the point at which they become dangerous, basically debunking your own argument. Now, do you still support that as a valid argument? [/b]

Might and close to the truth are honest ways of writing about something not proven by 100% scientifically. At least my writing isn't in the style 'Heed me, I'm the one who knows the grand truth!' like some people's here...
As for debunking my own argument, lol! I was typing a sane thought, you need to be able to do extensive LDing before you can be damaged by any side-effects. Surely you if LD for 5-10 minutes each night you won't find it dangerous. I can't imagine what 5 minutes can do to a human organism... blame my poor imagination
That's basically why all 'LDing isn't harmful' statements are of little worth. Someone who had no chance to discover if it is harmful states that there are none? C'mon!

Originally Posted by ataraxis

to show studies where there were no harmful effects.[/b]

But I'm not the one stating that LDing is 100% harmful, it's others stating that they are 100% ok! That's why it looks so funny. If you decide that it's 100% ok than it's up to you to come up with proof. And if you can't, please, don't state it as 100% truth.

Originally Posted by Follower

But I'm not the one stating that LDing is 100% harmful, it's others stating that they are 100% ok! That's why it looks so funny. If you decide that it's 100% ok than it's up to you to come up with proof. And if you can't, please, don't state it as 100% truth.
[/b]

Allow me to say, right now, that I (personally) am 100% okay, and have not been harmed in any way by Lucid Dreaming. I am not saying that no one can get hurt from Lucid dreaming. However, if we agree that saying that we suspect that no on can get hurt from Lucid Dreaming is wrong, than in your logic it is wrong as well to say that you suspect that you can get hurt from lucid dreaming. Have you been hurt by lucid dreaming??? If so, then I will change my opinion and agree that people can be hurt by lucid dreaming. However, untill then I say no, you can't, and I will leave it at that. There, i'm done posting in this thread.

Originally Posted by BillyBob_001

ataraxis, you should really take a little time out to cool down before you write your posts. (I noticed it was pretty emotionally charged)[/b]

Sorry if you felt that way. Someone's said that before, but to be honest I don't really get "emotional" whatsoever over the internet. Just out of curiosity (in keeping others from seeing that) what seems "emotionally charged?" But I really wasn't emotional about it. Sometimes it seems like you have to scream for people to hear you... eh?

Guess I'll try and defend my points a bit :



First off, I was pretty offended when I read the highlighted portion. I don't think that was necessary.[/b]

Well, I wasn't saying that it was laughable in that it was a stupid idea, but the fact that the horniness of teenage(boys)rs is huge... The fact is, most teenage boys have dirty dreams all the time and still seek women out...

Secondly, In saying: "A caveman that LDed about sex all night would have almost no real life sex drive", I was referring to him having little initiative to work for the love of the women of his tribe.
I was only speaking from experience here (both mine, and others I've talked to), when I was having sex lucidly on a nightly basis I lost all drive to impress my real life female counterparts. Yes, they would make me horny when I thought about them ( ), but there was never that "drive" to make them want me.
Instead, that particular drive was replaced with the want/need to sleep longer in order to have more lucid sex.

So yeah, I was speaking from my personal experience there.
[/b]

I suppose that that might be true for some as it is for you, but I still believe that most people are just as horny in real life as in dreams. And perhaps the part that seperates the dream sex and the real sex is the whole "love" aspect, which leads men to seek women out in real life. That isn't present in a dream, and the sex often comes with the love.

Originally Posted by BillyBob_001

I use 'might' so much because I want to be precise.[/b]

Huh, how about that.

his is why you can't say that REM always reduces stress [/b]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make... did I say that REM always reduces stress?

Might and close to the truth are honest ways of writing about something not proven by 100% scientifically. At least my writing isn't in the style 'Heed me, I'm the one who knows the grand truth!' like some people's here...[/b]

Sure, they are good ways of writing about something like that. But you said that you provided evidence, and Tsen didn't. Therefore I showed the fallacy of your "evidence." If you were to put out an attitude that it was simply an idea, rather than coming to the conclusion based all all those consecutive "possible truths" and then saying you have evidence and you wanted Tsen to prove his position... well, then that might have been more acceptable. And I never acted like I had the "grand truth." Really, I said why your arguments were wrong... not why mine were right. Also, it is a much different scenario when the people base their ideas on actual truths, versus possible theories based on "might-be-true" facts.

As for debunking my own argument, lol! I was typing a sane thought, you need to be able to do extensive LDing before you can be damaged by any side-effects.
Surely you if LD for 5-10 minutes each night you won't find it dangerous. I can't imagine what 5 minutes can do to a human organism... blame my poor imagination
[/b]

Uh, you definitly DID debunk your own argument. You said that LDing is dangerous when you do it a lot, but you said that people cannot actually come to the point where they LD too much. So why would you even need to mention LDing is dangerous? Here's something to wrap your head around what I"m saying: "hey, X is bad if you have a certain amount of it. But thankfully, no one can have that certain amount. Therefore... the prior statement was basically pointless."

Moreso, what are you basing your thoughts that LDing is dangerous if you do it that much? I know a guy who LDed every night... many times, and had day long or even week long lucid dreams. He was completely normal. Huh, I guess it isn't dangerous?

That's basically why all 'LDing isn't harmful' statements are of little worth. Someone who had no chance to discover if it is harmful states that there are none? C'mon! [/b]

Firstly, you never said why those statements are of little worth. You never proved that LDing is dangerous in extensive amounts. This isn't much of an argument: "Well, uh... it probably is... It would cause like, chemical imbalances... or something to do with REM."

Also, are you assuming that I haven't had lucid dreams? I have had tons, and had never got any "harmful states" from it, in fact, I've always felt better. How many lucid dreams have YOU had?

But I'm not the one stating that LDing is 100% harmful, it's others stating that they are 100% ok! That's why it looks so funny. If you decide that it's 100% ok than it's up to you to come up with proof. And if you can't, please, don't state it as 100% truth. [/b]

Sure, you can add the buffer "might" as much as you want, but you are saying that at a certain extensive point of lucid dreaming they are surely harmful. And don't you read the posts? Tsen DID provide posts - There is no difference in lucid dreams and normal dreams. Except in one, you are concious. The conciousness does not create any physical or psychological differences than from a normal dream. This IS proof. Read what Tsen said... we provided proof.

Originally Posted by BillyBob_001

1) LDing wouldn't improve a prehistoric mans chances at getting laid.
2) **
3) A radio announcer that you heard awhile back isn't the greatest source...
Speaking from experience, when I tried to get more sleep in order to LD I developed something called hypersomnia, I was drowsy all the time, I craved sleep nonstop, and often slept at least 14 hrs a night, usually up to 16.
I think anyone who tries to sleep too much will be able to.
[/b]

1) Evolution of traits, especially in regards to sociobiology, is much more subtle than the biggest guy always gets the girl. There are many characteristics which may improve social position, survival, reproductive success, etc. than are immediately obvious. It sounds like you are saying intelligence, ability to read other people, social skills of all sorts, actually any thing that you can't instantly see how it helps you to hunt, cannot possibly confer survival benefits and reproductive success. This is just not true; sociobiology is whole field of study within evolutionary biology, and applies to animals as well as humans. The physical arms race is important but dealing with other members of your species is very important as well. Therefore, if LD did improve intelligence or social capability in some way, and I'm not saying that is does, it could potentially improve the passing on of an individual's genes. Who knows, maybe the opposite is true and LD makes you less sociable and that's why there are so few natural LDers. I'm just saying that because you can't immediately see the survival benefit, doesn't mean that it isn't there. People spend their lives studying these things.

2) Yes, not the greatest source, but this isn't a scholarly paper I'm writing either. I heard a sleep expert from a well-known university talk for an hour about sleep disorders, it wasn't like some DJ said it. If you have the right sheltered environment, and abuse yourself in the pursuit of LD (which I have, to some extent) I think you may sleep more than you would otherwise, yet end up more tired because the sleep is disturbed. I believe that the average person, especially in the primitive conditions you are describing, would probably not end up over-sleeping just to LD.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

1) If someone makes a claim that LDing is dangerous, than it is their responsibility to provide studies that show that there are harmful effects, not for the other side to show studies where there were no harmful effects.

2) And on an evolutionary level, LDing has no real benefit one way or the other.

3) You are forgetting the most important part of natural selection - the ability to pass down traits. Who ever said lucid dreaming is a genetic trait? If you are supporting lucid dreaming as a process of natural selection, you have to prove that it is a genetic trait that can be passed down.
[/b]

1) No, of course you can't prove a negative, but medical studies that prove there is not likely to be harm from something are done all the time (not always successfully of course, for ex. recent cases of drugs that are harmful being recalled.) However, with enough numbers you can prove to an acceptable limit that something is extremely unlikely to be harmful. So studies could definitely be done to prove this about LD; I haven't looked, but I really doubt that they have been done.


2) Since we don't know what the benefits of LD might be, we have no way of knowing if is beneficial or not. Again, if it somehow improves an individuals ability to think, react, imagine, create, etc. it may confer benefits that are not immediately obvious.

3) "Genetic trait" may include the interactions of any number of genes; hence the spectrum we see in almost every aspect of the physical, mental, and emotional variability within species. Genetics is not always Mendelian, and we don't have to find the "LD" gene for it to be proven to be a heritable trait. You would agree that intelligence is inherited, right? But I don't think we have found the "smart" gene with its allele the "dumb" gene.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

... did I say that REM always reduces stress?[/b]

No, that was my explanation about my usage of words like might. And why it isn't precise to state that REM reduces stress, because it doesn't always do it. It was an example.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

But you said that you provided evidence, and Tsen didn't.[/b]

Did I? Where is my evidence? Evidence is something that is certain, not just a possible reason. So I don't have evidence, and Tsen doesn't.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

If you were to put out an attitude that it was simply an idea, rather than coming to the conclusion based all all those consecutive "possible truths" and then saying you have evidence and you wanted Tsen to prove his position... well, then that might have been more acceptable.[/b]

It's not my fault that you need a simple 'evidence', as you insist to call it, that doesn't involve many ideas

Originally Posted by ataraxis

And I never acted like I had the "grand truth."[/b]

I never said that, too. That post wasn't exclusively about you, it was general. When people state an opinion with nothing to back it up, even theoretically, this is what I call thinking that they have 'grand truth'.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Uh, you definitly DID debunk your own argument. You said that LDing is dangerous when you do it a lot, but you said that people cannot actually come to the point where they LD too much.[/b]

Why do you think that people can't learn to LD 'too much'? You think people can never learn? LDing has become popular only a while ago, what we have now is just the beginning

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Moreso, what are you basing your thoughts that LDing is dangerous if you do it that much?[/b]

When did I say that I do it 'that much'?

Originally Posted by ataraxis

I know a guy who LDed every night... many times, and had day long or even week long lucid dreams. He was completely normal. Huh, I guess it isn't dangerous?[/b]

You shot yourself in the leg You didn't say any of it at once, you preferred to not prove your opinion instead, or you forgot about proof you had? That makes me very dubious about credibility of your statement.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

are you assuming that I haven't had lucid dreams?[/b]

Where did you read this? You seem to find a lot of info in my post that wasn't there.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

There is no difference in lucid dreams and normal dreams.[/b]

Except that you'll wake up automatically from normal dreams. Your mysterious friend who LDed for a week felt no different after a week-long REM? Let me talk to him in private, then, if he exists

P.S. By the way, you asked anoter person why you come off as emotionally charged. Consider what you read into my post that was never there, I'm sure it was due to emotions. Nothing bad in that, emotional levels vary from person to person. Personally I don't think it's bad to sound emotional, you only have to hide your personality if you have something vile to hide

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

1) No, of course you can't prove a negative, but medical studies that prove there is not likely to be harm from something are done all the time (not always successfully of course, for ex. recent cases of drugs that are harmful being recalled.) However, with enough numbers you can prove to an acceptable limit that something is extremely unlikely to be harmful. So studies could definitely be done to prove this about LD; I haven't looked, but I really doubt that they have been done.[/b]

It's really quite unnecessary. First of all, are dreams harmful? No. Tsen already said why lucid dreams are just like regular dreams. Here is the logic. A) Dreaming is not harmful. B) Lucid dreams are dreams C) Lucid dreaming isn't harmful

Also, anecdotal evidence in the form of people having an incredible frequency of lucid dreams with no adverse effects.

2) Since we don't know what the benefits of LD might be, we have no way of knowing if is beneficial or not. Again, if it somehow improves an individuals ability to think, react, imagine, create, etc. it may confer benefits that are not immediately obvious.[/b]

Sure, but does it improve this? Do you believe that the ability to imagine increases your ability to survive and reproduce?

3) "Genetic trait" may include the interactions of any number of genes; hence the spectrum we see in almost every aspect of the physical, mental, and emotional variability within species. Genetics is not always Mendelian, and we don't have to find the "LD" gene for it to be proven to be a heritable trait. You would agree that intelligence is inherited, right? But I don't think we have found the "smart" gene with its allele the "dumb" gene.[/b]

Huh? You are only defining what a genetic trait is. To make this theory work you have to actually prove it as an inheritable trait, not that it "could be one."


<blockquote>

Did I? Where is my evidence? Evidence is something that is certain, not just a possible reason. So I don&#39;t have evidence, and Tsen doesn&#39;t.

</blockquote>Did I >>> Yes, you did.

<blockquote>

What&#39;s your proof that LDing too much can&#39;t hurt? I&#39;d like to hear it, otherwise your self-assured claims aren&#39;t based on anything.
I say &#39;extensive LDing can probably hurt, because... (named a couple of becauses)&#39;. You say &#39;extensive LDing can&#39;t hurt, because... we just want to say so&#39;?

</blockquote>
Notice that you said that you "named a couple of becauses" hence you listed reasons, hence listed evidence. You are perverting the word "evidence."

<blockquote>

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

</blockquote>
That is the definition for evidence. Tell me where it says "Certain" in there. Evidence simply attempts to prove or disprove something. You certainly had evidence, which I showed to have too many fallacies to be taken seriously. Furthermore, I don&#39;t understand... are you attempting to support your side by saying that you did in fact have evidence? And in addition, Tsen certainly did have evidence.

<blockquote>

Back later.
In short, I did explain: LD&#39;s are identical to normal dreams in their physical effects--So an LD can hurt you no more than a normal dream can.

</blockquote><blockquote>

In short, LDing cannot harm you for the simple reason that it is only different from a normal dream in that you have a higher state of consciousness than is typical for a dream.
It will NOT impede the amount of sleep you get, because it is EXACTLY the same as being asleep as per norm--your consciousness does not impair the restfulness of your sleep. A Lucid Dream may make you FEEL exhausted, but so can a normal dream, or more commonly a nightmare, and it is not an actual physical effect, only mental; somewhat along the lines of a placebo.
Next, yes I suppose LD&#39;s could be harmful psychologically.
But that is based on your choices in the dream, and what you choose to do with your lucid time.
And yes, you could hurt yourself in the pursuit of an LD--but only if you do something stupid, like overdose on B6.

BUT LD&#39;ING ITSELF IS IN NO WAY HARMFUL--BECAUSE IT IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO A NORMAL DREAM.

</blockquote>
He provides legitimate reasons. Do you deny that this is evidence?
<blockquote>

It&#39;s not my fault that you need a simple &#39;evidence&#39;, as you insist to call it, that doesn&#39;t involve many ideas
</blockquote>

Huh? Please quote me where I "need sipmle evidence that doesn&#39;t involve many ideas." I simply said the &#39;proof&#39; that you were providing was incredibly faulty, and you were presenting it as if it was legitimate.

<blockquote>

I never said that, too. That post wasn&#39;t exclusively about you, it was general. When people state an opinion with nothing to back it up, even theoretically, this is what I call thinking that they have &#39;grand truth&#39;.

</blockquote>
Ha. By that logic, you think you have the "Grand truth." You stated an opinion with nothing legitimate to back it up... theoretically or not. So I suppose you act as if you have the grand truth as well.

<blockquote>

Why do you think that people can&#39;t learn to LD &#39;too much&#39;? You think people can never learn? LDing has become popular only a while ago, what we have now is just the beginning

</blockquote>
Work on your reading comprehension YOU said that most people are not able to reach a point in LDing where it is dangerous. I never said this, you did. My god man, you said that people can&#39;t reach a point where it becomes dangerous, thus saying "Lucid dreaming is dangerous past that point" is pointless. I said that you said this. I never said this, you did. How many times do I have to repeat myself.


<blockquote>

When did I say that I do it &#39;that much&#39;?

</blockquote>
Is English your second language? I said you as in "one." As if, what are you basing your opinions on that LDing is dangerous if SOMEONE does it too much. I suppose I have to resort to the dictionary again, as it is difficult to debate with a person who doesn&#39;t understand words let alone the ideas (Yes, that was an ad hominem).
<blockquote>

you
2.one; anyone; people in general: a tiny animal you can&#39;t even see.

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

You shot yourself in the leg You didn&#39;t say any of it at once, you preferred to not prove your opinion instead, or you forgot about proof you had? That makes me very dubious about credibility of your statement.

</blockquote>
What are you talking about? Elaborate.

<blockquote>

Where did you read this? You seem to find a lot of info in my post that wasn&#39;t there.

Someone who had no chance to discover if it is harmful states that there are none? C&#39;mon&#33;

</blockquote>
That was your quote. The "someone... states that there are none" is referring to me. Then you say "who had no chance to discover if it is harmful." "It" refers to lucid dreams. Thus you are saying that I had no chance to discover if lucid dreams are harmful, inferring that I have not had them. If this was not your intention to convey this message, then please look over your posts before submitting them. With the english language, people need to assume certain parts of your meaning if your sentence is ambiguous. Make sure that either your post isn&#39;t ambiguous, or your meaning is much less blantantly something you didn&#39;t in fact mean.


<blockquote>

Except that you&#39;ll wake up automatically from normal dreams. Your mysterious friend who LDed for a week felt no different after a week-long REM? Let me talk to him in private, then, if he exists

</blockquote>
You wake up automatically from EVERY DREAM. Yes, this is a proven fact from Stephen Laberge. After every sleep cycle, a person wakes up, but usually forgets it. This was recorded in a sleep study from a machine called an electroneurograph as well as other scientific instruments. I am elaborating so much so that you can&#39;t possibly say that this isn&#39;t true.

Secondly, it wasn&#39;t a week long REM. It was something known as time dilation. Search this, as it is discussed all the time. Also, he felt normal after the dream. Notice that the only different feelings were psychological. They had nothing to do with extensive REM. Furthermore, he can have lucid dreams whenever he wants and as long as he wants. No "harmful effects"

<blockquote>

P.S. By the way, you asked anoter person why you come off as emotionally charged. Consider what you read into my post that was never there, I&#39;m sure it was due to emotions. Nothing bad in that, emotional levels vary from person to person. Personally I don&#39;t think it&#39;s bad to sound emotional, you only have to hide your personality if you have something vile to hide

</blockquote>
As I said above, most of the stuff that you say "wasn&#39;t there" either was there, or you implied it (intentionally or not). You should be less ambiguous with your posts, as well as remembering what you said.

PS: Quotes aren&#39;t working so all quotes are indented

Originally Posted by ataraxis;

You stated an opinion with nothing legitimate to back it up... theoretically or not. [/b]

If what I backed it up with wasn&#39;t &#39;theoretical&#39; for you, than I guess you considered it &#39;practical&#39;.

Originally Posted by ataraxis;

YOU said that most people are not able to reach a point in LDing where it is dangerous. I never said this, you did.[/b]

Please, try to understand I wasn&#39;t just talking about what you said or didn&#39;t say.
First, I said that most people don&#39;t reach the point when LDing becomes dangerous. Then you said that I was somehow debunking my own argument and explained why. But to explain it you had to pretend that you didn&#39;t understand that people COULD learn to LD extensively and thus bring possible harm to themselves. Otherwise you couldn&#39;t have called my words &#39;debunking&#39;, as they could only disprove anything if you pretended that I was saying something like &#39;Skating can bring harm, but noone will ever know how to skate&#39;. So I pointed out that I wasn&#39;t saying &#39;noone will ever know&#39;, by asking you &#39;why do you think that noone will ever know?&#39;.

Originally Posted by ataraxis;

You are perverting the word "evidence."[/b]

Ok, ok, as you wish.

Originally Posted by ataraxis;

I said you as in "one."[/b]

You should try to be less ambigous. I have my moments of megalomania, too, when I assume that you can only talk about wonderful me in your post

Originally Posted by ataraxis;

What are you talking about? Elaborate.[/b]

Are you making fun? Ok, just to humour you, that was funny

Originally Posted by ataraxis;

The "someone... states that there are none" is referring to me.[/b]

Man, you&#39;re giving me headache&#33; That wasn&#39;t about YOU&#33; Now you make the same megalomaniac mistake which I did earlier, when I assumed that you used &#39;you&#39; literally when you used it as &#39;one&#39;.

My full quote: "That&#39;s basically why all &#39;LDing isn&#39;t harmful&#39; statements are of little worth. Someone who had no chance to discover if it is harmful states that there are none? C&#39;mon&#33;"

First, it wasn&#39;t about YOU, it was in general, I even wrote &#39;statementS&#39;, not just one &#39;statement&#39;. Second, I was talking about a chance to discover if it has harmful effects. How is that related to an ability to LD? It seems that you want to ignore what I&#39;ve been trying to say, that extensive LDing might be harmful, not LDing for 5 minutes per night&#33;
If you refuse to notice that I&#39;m talking about extensive LDing, then I don&#39;t know what is the meaning of our talk at all. It&#39;s meaningless and a waste of time.

Originally Posted by ataraxis;

You wake up automatically from EVERY DREAM.[/b]

And? So if someone forces a LD on himself, he&#39;ll wake up once every 90 minutes, and so what? What would prevent him from forcing another LD after waking up?
People don&#39;t normally deprive themselves of Non-REM. Extensive LDing would be just that.

Originally Posted by ataraxis;

Secondly, it wasn&#39;t a week long REM. It was something known as time dilation.[/b]

Then why did you try to tell me that your friend&#39;s experience proves that extensive LDing isn&#39;t harmful? It wasn&#39;t extensive LDing at all.

Damn, now I&#39;m really tired of this. It seems that you don&#39;t read what I say at all, so you talk about time dilation as if it was extensive LDing, and about an ability to LD for 5 min being enough to prove there are no harmful effects, etc. I think I&#39;ll quit this discussion soon, it really is a waste of time.

<blockquote>
If what I backed it up with wasn&#39;t &#39;theoretical&#39; for you, than I guess you considered it &#39;practical&#39;.
</blockquote>

Read: I was quoting what you said "that it could either be theoretical idea or not that they are presenting as grand truth." I like how you didn&#39;t deny pretending you had the grand truth.


<blockquote>But to explain it you had to pretend that you didn&#39;t understand that people COULD learn to LD extensively and thus bring possible harm to themselves.</blockquote>
Ah, I understand why you have trouble understanding what I am saying. You believe that everything I say I believe. I am simply using your own logic -- as you said lucid dreaming to that point wasn&#39;t possible. I said that because you did. You seem to be inconsistent with your decisions. First you say people can&#39;t, then when I repeat that people can&#39;t, you say "Why can&#39;t they?" Get your story straight sonny.

<blockquote>Ok, ok, as you wish.</blockquote>

Eh? I didn&#39;t &#39;wish&#39; anything. You attempted to make a point and say neither you nore tsen have evidence. I prooved you wrong...

<blockquote>You should try to be less ambigous. I have my moments of megalomania, too, when I assume that you can only talk about wonderful me in your post
</blockquote>

Seriously man, is english your second language? What I said was much different than what you said.
<blockquote>More so, what are you basing your thoughts that LDing is dangerous if you do it that much?</blockquote>

Do you honestly think my intention here was to say "Do you think that All lucid dreams that anyone ever has are dangerous if you personally do it too much" If you do think this, then please spend more time reading posts.

<blockquote>Are you making fun? Ok, just to humour you, that was funny </blockquote>

Nice copout&#33;

<blockquote>
Man, you&#39;re giving me headache&#33; </blockquote>

Sorry if your mind can&#39;t understand 3rd grade grammar&#33;

And as I said, I don&#39;t care if you didn&#39;t mean that. Just be clearer in what you are saying.
<blockquote>
If you refuse to notice that I&#39;m talking about extensive LDing, then I don&#39;t know what is the meaning of our talk at all. It&#39;s meaningless and a waste of time.</blockquote>

Are you ignorning every single one of my points? I mean, are you fucking serious? WHERE DID I REFUSE TO NOTICE THIS? So you think the person who I mentioned who has four lucid dreams every night... for hours... isn&#39;t extensive lucid dreaming? Please... please quote me (in context, not where I was mentioning that you said that it wasn&#39;t possible to lucid dream that much... you do that an awful lot).


<blockquote>And? So if someone forces a LD on himself, he&#39;ll wake up once every 90 minutes, and so what? </blockquote>

Um, are you serious. You attempted to make a point that in normal dreams you wake up automatically, but in lucid dreams you don&#39;t. Thus I proved you wrong. I wasn&#39;t making any point except that yours was wrong.
<blockquote>People don&#39;t normally deprive themselves of Non-REM. Extensive LDing would be just that.</blockquote>

Wow, that is finally your first-half-point. I mean, it almost makes sense. Except you are forgetting that any dream that is potentially harmful that deprives someone of Non-REM (I&#39;m assuming that you are right) might be harmful. This makes it irrelevant that lucid dreams are particularly harmful. Furthermore, why would lucid dreaming do this rather than regular dreams? Proof? Or wait, do you just believe this? No credentials whatsoever? Okay.


<blockquote>Then why did you try to tell me that your friend&#39;s experience proves that extensive LDing isn&#39;t harmful? It wasn&#39;t extensive LDing at all.</blockquote>

Yes... he has hour long lucid dreams (notice plural) every night. No harm done.

<blockquote>It seems that you don&#39;t read what I say at all, </blockquote>
Ironic.
<blockquote>so you talk about time dilation as if it was extensive LDing, </blockquote>
As I said, he has multiple hour long lucids every night.
<blockquote>and about an ability to LD for 5 min being enough to prove there are no harmful effects, etc</blockquote>
Eh? I never said this. Stop putting words into my mouth. Quote me - straight up. Every time I asked you to quote me on something that you said that I said, you copped out. So stop claiming that I said things, unless you are willing to back it up.

Stop arguing about semantics.

Also, I see... one... somewhat legitimite, but not backed up, point of yours. Seriously, you have made no proof of your position beyond that exception. Your whole argument is based on you constantly changing your opinion and questioning yourself when I mention what you said ("you: Hey, people can&#39;t lucid dream that much." "Me: You said that people can&#39;t lucid dream that much, and by that logic your argument is basically pointless." "You: wHY CAN&#39;T THEY LUCID DREAM THAT MUCH?"). Do you honestly believe that wasn&#39;t... well... stupid to say.

Please make a bullet point list of reasons why lucid dreaming might be harmful. If you can&#39;t do this, then I assume that you admit you have no proof that lucid dreaming is harmful... other than your "faith."

Lol, man.. I can&#39;t believe you didn&#39;t understand my explanations. Mind barrier?
Anyway, I&#39;m not willing to explain again. I tend to skip obvious things assuming that the person I&#39;m talking to understands them, and maybe it seems to you that I&#39;m jumping to something suddenly, when in fact it was a logical leap. There are instances when you completely misunderstood what I meant, for what reason I have no idea. I wonder why my friends understand the same things?
For example, you say:
&#39;I never said this. Stop putting words into my mouth. Quote me - straight up.&#39; How can you fail to understand? I&#39;m shocked. And that was after you told me that your friend didn&#39;t have extensive LDing, but instead had time dilation effect...
But then I see that suddenly you change your mind and state that your friend DID LDed for hours&#33;
So that mysterious friend of yours DID LDed for hours real-time or was it time dilation? Please, clarify that, you seem to be changing you mind all the time.

Or this:
&#39;You attempted to make a point that in normal dreams you wake up automatically, but in lucid dreams you don&#39;t. Thus I proved you wrong.&#39;
You proved me wrong? I believe we were talking about normal dreams and normal sleep cycle. If it was ever proved that a LD gets interrupted every 90 minutes, I&#39;m eager to hear you out.

Or this, about Non-REM deprivation:
&#39;Furthermore, why would lucid dreaming do this rather than regular dreams?&#39;
Because you have a choice to not wake up...
You&#39;re in control, you see? And if you suddenly woke up due to any reason, you can LD again. That means that you can LD all the time and deprive yourself of Non-REM.
And don&#39;t pretend that you realized what REM excessiveness meant just now. You couldn&#39;t fail to understand it, having seen me writing so much about extensive LDing. Sorry, but did I really have to spell out that extensive LDing would be Non-REM deprivation, if it was obvious from the start? I&#39;m glad that I decided to mention it this time, although I admit that I debated with myself a bit, thinking whether I should mention such an obvious thing.

Anyway, my unsuccessful attempts to explain my own thinking didn&#39;t yield results, so I&#39;ll give up and let you think whatever you want. It seems that normal way of writing to you is futile and I&#39;d have to write as simple as possible and write out every tiny step of my thoughts in details, which isn&#39;t normally done by people. Sorry, but writing out every nuance would take too much time.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

1) It&#39;s really quite unnecessary. First of all, are dreams harmful? No. Tsen already said why lucid dreams are just like regular dreams. Here is the logic. A) Dreaming is not harmful. B) Lucid dreams are dreams C) Lucid dreaming isn&#39;t harmful

Also, anecdotal evidence in the form of people having an incredible frequency of lucid dreams with no adverse effects.

2) Sure, but does it improve this? Do you believe that the ability to imagine increases your ability to survive and reproduce?

3)Huh? You are only defining what a genetic trait is. To make this theory work you have to actually prove it as an inheritable trait, not that it "could be one."
[/b]

1) I am not arguing that lucid dreaming is harmful, I am just saying that it could be proven with acceptable probability that it is not harmful, which you disputed. I do not believe that it is harmful, altho not because of your simplistic logic. You have not proven that lucid dreaming is identical psychologically to regular dreaming with that statement. You went from saying that it could not be proven because you can never prove not-harm, to accepting the weakest of all evidence--aneccdotal. Again, I am not saying that I think lucid dreaming is harmful.

2) Without a doubt. The ability to imagine (along with memory, which definitely is influenced by dreaming) is one of the main way that intelligence manifests itself into benefits in the physical world. I don&#39;t think that anyone would argue that intelligence is not selected for, and imagination is a component of intelligence.

3) Not really--most (all?) abilities are inherited to one degree or another, so I doubt the ability to lucid dream would be any different. Of course, it may be such a basic ability that is present, but not developed, in everybody so that is meaningless to talk about inheriting better lucid dreaming skills.

DISCLAIMER: I don&#39;t think lucid dreaming is harmful, unless you spend too much money on lucid-aids. I doubt it has played a huge part in human evolution (altho it may play a larger role in the lives of primitive people and therefore be a component of their social interaction which could influence their reproductive success). I am not sure if lucid dreaming is beneficial, but I am still trying to find out, and I hope it is.

As far as I can see this discussion is pretty much stuck and has more or less turned into a mess of personal attacks or something...

And btw you all need to learn how to answer concisely, my eyes are tired. But it&#39;s indeed an interesting debate.

Originally Posted by BohmaN

As far as I can see this discussion is pretty much stuck and has more or less turned into a mess of personal attacks or something...

And btw you all need to learn how to answer concisely, my eyes are tired. But it&#39;s indeed an interesting debate.
[/b]

I didn&#39;t attack anybody. I thought we were just discussing. Is anybody upset? Maybe you are not referring to me. I guess a couple of the other posts may have been more confrontational and I didn&#39;t finish reading, because you are right, they are pretty long&#33;