I noticed that my link above is not working. Here is a link to Laberges published studies:Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
http://ft.csa.com/ids70/resolver.php..._2_88&mode=pdf
That should work as long as it is publicly available..
~
Printable View
I noticed that my link above is not working. Here is a link to Laberges published studies:Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
http://ft.csa.com/ids70/resolver.php..._2_88&mode=pdf
That should work as long as it is publicly available..
~
O'nus, what about those of us to take complete control of our lucid dreams, and manipulate it, even decide what to dream? How is that then explained?
Now please keep in mind that I am simply acting as a discourse catalyst - I do believe in the benefits of lucid dreaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Line
However, for what you said, there is no scientific support for this. Furthermore, there is truly no way to prove it as of it besides speculation. This is because any proof will be hearsay and subject to bias, lying, and simply no empirical evidence.
Consider that these two situations are possible: to have a lucid dream and decide to have a normal dream (what kind of dream is that?), and to have a normal dream about the idea of lucid dreaming (what kind of dream is that?).
The idea is actual awareness vs dreaming of awareness. Then asking, is it not possible that this question can be applied to many other scenarios? Hence the controversy.
~
I know that these are not your personal opinions, I'm just curious about those that have these opinions. :P As I'm one of those who can choose my own dreams (but that doesn't happen all the time), so I have no problem believing others who say they can. Because I know first hand it's possible. ;)
Also, again speaking from personal experience, I have had both scenarios described happening. I've had a non-lucid dream where I complained to a person about something with my lucid dream, and I often choose to "forget" that I'm lucid dreaming, especially if I'm menally worn out from a hard day.
I bet these people doing this study has never had a lucid dream... ;)
In this case you are lucid until you forget that it's a dream. If you induce a dream and forget, you are no longer lucid. If you remember, you have simply used "falling asleep" as a means of changing scenes.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Dreaming about lucid dreaming is not a lucid dream. Only dreaming that you are dreaming.Quote:
Normal Dream of a Lucid Dream:
A sporadic normal dream about the idea of lucid dreaming.
Even though I can't see this logically happening, I must agree that there probably is a possibility. There is always a "but" I guess.:PQuote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
So... I still think the problem here is the way people think, rather than there being an actual anomaly with this LD business.
After reviewing Laberge's journals, again, here are some additional problems with lucid dreaming that I propose:
- There is no control group. I did not find any study with Laberge that contained a control group. How can you properly define lucid dreaming if you do not use the same methods in those who are NOT trying to lucid dream?
- Luicd Dream verification is not operationally defined. In any vague reference, it is when the person moves eyes in a pattern, controls breathing, or some other somatic response. These are subject to reflexive criticism. Note that he says lucid dreaming can only occur during REM period and verifies it with eye movement. RAPID EYE MOVEMENT sleep contains RAPID EYE MOVEMENT. Hence, he is very likely to have mistakenly read a verification. Furthermore, breathing changes in non-lucid dreamers quite frequently. I will try to find a scientific journal article to show this.
- Many of his proof of lucid dreaming is based on correlation. Anyone who has gone through research methods 101 knows that correlation does not prove causality. This does not assert that lucid dreaming exists or is caused.
- Then there are the previous thought experiments that I proposed that this research fails to refute.
Laberge Articles:
Lucid Dreaming: Psychophysiological Studies of Consciousness during REM Sleep by Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D.:
http://www.lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html
Physiological Correlates of Luicd Dreaming by Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D.:
http://ft.csa.com/ids70/resolver.php..._2_88&mode=pdf (May not be pubicly available.. I cannot be sure of this right now)
Keep in mind, I do advocate lucid dreaming. However, I also advocate the scientific endeavour and philosophic discourse which means you must take all skepticism into account to come to a conclusive truth.
~
No, I mean to have a lucid dream and induce a sporadic dream. I frequently try to do this. It feels odd as you are forced into a third perspective and then view random imagery. It kind of feels like zoning out instead of focusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
Furthermore, if you are saying that you cannot do this, then there are limitations to luicd dreaming. If we cannot have a lucid dream about having a dream, then what implications does this have on the ability to control dreams?
And you encapsulated my point; dreaming about lucid dreaming is not a lucid dream. The skeptics will argue that this can be applied to ALL proposed/claimed lucid dreams.
~
Well, that's the "problem" with lucid dreaming. How can you prove it? It's not like we can enter each other's dreams and ask if they know they are dreaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Line
Then the following arguement that skeptics make is that even lucid dreams are actually normal dreams about lucidity.
~
Note: I was wrong, there are control groups. However, he does not publish the data from them. The fact that he mentions it and then ommits will obviously make him suspect to criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
~
And as I said, the skeptics can't possibly ever have had a lucid dream. It's kinda like the famous cave theory, if you've heard about it. :) They will just have to take our word for it, or step out of the cave themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
EWoLD describes the tests in a fair amount of detail. He also mentions details of the eye movement tests that make it quite clear the movements were pre-determined, and specific to the test.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Note that this is the same argument many theists use for religious beliefs. Circular reasoning will not convince any skeptic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Line
I know what you mean, as I have been lucid dreaming for some time, but even authentic lucid dreaming is subject to questioning as we have shown.
~
This is taken straight from Laberge:Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
Induction and Verification of Lucidity
"A variety of signals were agree upon, typically two pairs of extremely horizontal eye movements (left, right, left, right - termed LR2) to indicate a state of lucidity and four pairs of the same eye movements (left, right, left, right, left, right, left, right - termed LR4) to denote a waking state. As all subjects had participated in psychophysiological studies on lucid dreaming before, they were well aware of what characterized a luicd dream:"
Two problems and one I did not think of before until now:
- These eye movements are rapid. Furthermore, he does not show a control groups patterns of eye movements. I will try to find the typical movements of eyes to support this.
- If ALL participants are aware of luicd dreaming, does this include possible control groups or control data?
~
Ah yeah, I'd assume so.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I guess it boils it down to that we would just have to scientifically prove it, but how?
But if we decide to "convert" them, we could actually do it, something theists haven't managed yet. Perhaps if we keep waking them up every 10 minutes. That's what gives me LDs every time I try. Oh well...Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Well, that's the problem; as of now, we can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Line
However, if we really wanted to make this interesting - I cannot even prove to you that I am thinking. I can show you EEG and what not, but that does not prove the existance of my self-consciousness.
Either way, this is the crux of skepticism in regards to lucid dreaming. Perhaps there are further implications in these studies than we imagine..? Some people speculate that dreaming is not really being unconscious at all. Anyone have any relevant articles..? It looks like I have got a lot of hunting to do.. I will return later..
~
I still don't understand the arguement. No one is saying that lucid dreams are not still dreams. Of course you are dreaming of being lucid - you are asleep and dreaming.
Dreaming and Lucid dreaming are not two different things. A Lucid dream is a type of dream. How could anyone argue that there are not different levels of awareness in dreams? Or that there are different types of dreams?
I don't see the difference between having a lucid dream, and dreaming you are having a lucid dream.
Do you have a link to any more literature on this debate? I don't fully understand the arguement.
It seems like the only base for skepticism is on the most fundamental grounds of whether one has self awareness or not. This is not a scientific debate. It is a philosophical one. If it was grounds for debate, then all of science would become suspect. The same arguement could be made for how we experience our waking life, and whether we are truly aware while awake.
This is hogwash.
I think I understand what you are saying O'nus. I think it is possible that we are having a dream of being aware of our dream, but what we feel as choice, could be a choice made by the mind , as in regular dreams, but the dream lets us feel like we made a conscious choice.
I think you think of existence or at least of being able to prove things as I do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as you said about proving that you are breathing, I've thought of that too. I also thought of a paradox , "Nothing can be proven nor disproved. I can prove that by not being able to." I think that there is no way to be completely certain of anything, there is always a possibility of everything being completely different than we perceive it to be.
If I had to choose though, I would bet that we are having truly lucid dreams. I think so because I have been able to look at the "dreamscape" as I call it. One day I had a WILD , which makes me believe it even more. It was amazing going from a waking state to a dream so quickly. Being able to move my head in the dream was also amazing.
I like the way you think O'nus :)
A dream within a dream is still a dream just as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
A dream about a lucid dream where you don't do what you'd intended to do when you fell asleep is, IMO, still a (low-grade) lucid dream by my definition, because I define a lucid dream as any dream in which you realize you're dreaming, regardless of how full and useful that realization is.
Even in full wakefulness, our own actions are not conscious: free will does not exist. The explanation that we only "dream we are lucid dreaming" is therefore false, as wakefulness itself is akin to it.
Just a thought :P
Firstly, when you say free will does not exist an we do not make conscious decisions in waking life, I am curious to hear you elaborate on this as that it seems to hold a lot of philosophical content. I worry that it will lead to Cartesian doubt and, thusly, will lead to Pyrrhonism which will get us nowhere. We can easily doubt the existance of everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Back to everyone else.
The difference between lucid dreams and dreams is this; lucid dreams is attributed as having self-awareness, consciousness, etc. whereas dreams are attributed as being unconscious and uncontrollable. If you define dreams as the experiences while being asleep, then there is no need to define lucid dreaming because that definition categorises them both and there is no difference then.
If you categorise lucid dreams as dreams, then you also have to be prepared to answer then what truly distinguished lucidity from non-lucidity? If lucid dreams is the awareness of dreams, and dreams is not having awareness, the arguement goes that you can still dream of having awareness in dreams.
There are some semantic problems here. However, here's the fundamental arguement:
- You can dream of anything.
- Lucid dreams are the cases where you are aware of your dreams and can control your dreams.
- Therefore, you can dream of lucid dreams (cases where you are aware of your dreams and can control your dreams).
Here's the other arguement:
- Lucid dreams are still dreams
- Thus, what is the difference then?
Here's the response:
- If Dreams = experiences in sleep that we are not 'aware' of or can make conscious decisions in.
- If lucid dreams = dreams then you are saying we are not 'aware' of or can make conscious decisions in our dreams.
What do you think...?
~
I think this arguement misses the main issue that dreams themselves do not exist. The only reason you can argue that lucid dreams can not be proven in a reliable way, is because dreams themselves can not be proven in a reliable way.
So I would agree that lucid dreams do not exist. I would also agree that dreams about your family do not exist. You can never prove the content of someone's dreams. You can only prove that their body exhibits the outward signs of a dreaming state.
For skeptics to believe that lucid dreams exist, would we need to show a physiological difference between a lucid and non lucid? If the brain wave patterns were different, or eye movement was different, would that prove their existence?
This seems to miss the whole point of what a lucid dream is. It is a dream that you experience differently. Not a dream that is fundamentally different from normal dreams.
How are you defining lucid dreams then? If it has nothing to do with awareness, then are we not deviating from our original definition of "lucidity"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot_Butler
Stephen LaBerge attempted to show physiological proof for lucid dreaming - see my above posts in regards to that.
If you assert that dreams do not exist - then you are probably on the same grounds of lucid dream skeptics.
~