Thread: Lucid Dreaming Controversy

Lucid dreaming IS lucid dreaming. I've experienced things such as remembering exactly where I'm sleeping and what I'm really wearing in reality when in a dream, remembering stuff I did while awake earlier that day, remembering plans for the LD that I made whether weeks ago or just before going to sleep, contemplating whether to stay awake or not because I remembered I need to wake up for one reason or another then forcefully waking myself up and going to do what I intended, etc. All that is impossible if I "dreamt of lucid dreaming". I also know that I'm not the only one with such experiences.

Originally Posted by dreamMeUp

if you are referring to the Descartes quote "Cogito ergo sum" - that, from my experiences and in my opinion, is wrong in almost too many ways to quickly describe in a format like this one here.

But what would you personally say how to tackle the definition and testing of full consciousness in waking life?

No, I am referring to his discourse on how we cannot be sure that we are awake or not. Descartes was a oneironaut.
~

No, I am referring to his discourse on how we cannot be sure that we are awake or not. Descartes was a oneironaut.

wow, that's interesting! I didn't know he was... does he refer to those experiences in his texts?

I will try to outline my views on what defines consciousness (I was hoping to learn about your views, but maybe you are waiting for a little more efforts from my side before you start to type this out? )


I must say that the question wether we are awake or not is, to my mind, not the crucial one.
The question as I see it is:

In both dreaming and waking states...

- ...how to ascertain for ourselves that we are fully conscious (including the criteria for full consciousness as well as how to check for those criteria)

- ...how to ascertain this state in communication with or examination of someone, i.e. from the outside.

I think the first one is already difficult enough, awake or dreaming.

I read a good post by someone around here on how he raises his level of lucidity in a dream. These were mostly methods involving concentration on sensual receptions (visual, audio, tactile and other stimuli).
"Thought" as an activity was not a vital part of the list of things to do.

And it works great for me - in both waking life and in dreams!
In my mother tongue, consciousness translates to a combination of "being" and "aware".
I feel that while the mind is a great problem solving tool for a certain type of problems, it is not identical with my consciousness or who I essentially am.

On the contrary: high rational activity stops me from being aware as its main subjects are the past and the future, evaluating what has been, drawing conclusions for future decisions (for example).

The subject of the consciousness, as I see it, is the present. That's why focusing on sensual perceptions grounds me in the present and therefore raises my notion of being aware (fully conscious).

Now, that is only the view from the inside. How to examine that from the outside I got no clue.

What do you think about the criteria for being fully conscious?
Do you think they are different in waking and dreaming state?

This is really a fascinating discussion. I feel I can learn things from it about myself!

Originally Posted by dreamMeUp

wow, that's interesting! I didn't know he was... does he refer to those experiences in his texts?

Yes, I cannot recall the exact pages at this moment, but he frequently talks about how "reality checks" done in dreams have the same significance in waking state.

(I was hoping to learn about your views, but maybe you are waiting for a little more efforts from my side before you start to type this out? )

Sorry, my views in regards to what..?

I must say that the question wether we are awake or not is, to my mind, not the crucial one.
The question as I see it is:

In both dreaming and waking states...

- ...how to ascertain for ourselves that we are fully conscious (including the criteria for full consciousness as well as how to check for those criteria)

- ...how to ascertain this state in communication with or examination of someone, i.e. from the outside.

I think the first one is already difficult enough, awake or dreaming.

I read a good post by someone around here on how he raises his level of lucidity in a dream. These were mostly methods involving concentration on sensual receptions (visual, audio, tactile and other stimuli).
"Thought" as an activity was not a vital part of the list of things to do.

And it works great for me - in both waking life and in dreams!
In my mother tongue, consciousness translates to a combination of "being" and "aware".
I feel that while the mind is a great problem solving tool for a certain type of problems, it is not identical with my consciousness or who I essentially am.

On the contrary: high rational activity stops me from being aware as its main subjects are the past and the future, evaluating what has been, drawing conclusions for future decisions (for example).

The subject of the consciousness, as I see it, is the present. That's why focusing on sensual perceptions grounds me in the present and therefore raises my notion of being aware (fully conscious).

Now, that is only the view from the inside. How to examine that from the outside I got no clue.

What do you think about the criteria for being fully conscious?
Do you think they are different in waking and dreaming state?

This is really a fascinating discussion. I feel I can learn things from it about myself!

This is the crucial point of the controversy.

I can relate to you because these are the same grounds that I attain lucidity. I always look at my hand and go through the senses per finger to try and determine my surroundings. Often, I need not to use my hand and can instinctively do it (but I worry that it is not the same).

Full consciousness is difficult. We could argue about it on philosophic grounds, but, for the sake of practicality, I think it best to say when the brain is functioning on beta waves and produces monoamine neurotransmitters.
~

Sorry, my views in regards to what..?

Ah, sry, I was interested in your views as to wether proving someone is fully conscious is not just as hard in a waking state as in a dreaming state.

We could argue about it on philosophic grounds, but, for the sake of practicality, I think it best to say when the brain is functioning on beta waves and produces monoamine neurotransmitters.

okay - first of all: you seem to be pretty biochemics savvy and I would like to kindly ask you if you could point me to online resources which can give me as a layman some insight into the significance of those aspects (Wikipedia does the job? Which keywords? Or other resources?) so I can really follow your points.

I am assuming that the mentioned neurotransmitters and beta waves are both part of what might happen while asleep, too?

I can see that it might be more practical to be kind of reducing consciousness on measurable biochemics. The question you (the general you) would have to deal with beforehand, though, is which kind of brain activity patterns are connected with the feeling of being fully conscious (as determined by subjective assumption) and which patterns are connected to the act of, for example, rational problem solving.

Then you would have a reference of patterns which you could apply to various dreaming state brain conditions and thus make a statement as to the probable level of consciousness.

EDIT: I would like to add that if the mentioned data does not show any significant change of patterns (in waking state) with the individual in a state of perceived consciousness on the one hand or in a state of rational reasoning on the other hand (or other defined states of perceived lower level consciousness) then it might indicate that consciousness as such might be a matter of pure imagination or you could argue that this change of feelings should manifest somewhere in the body physically, thus making the whole thing a search for the right places to examine.

Originally Posted by dreamMeUp

Ah, sry, I was interested in your views as to wether proving someone is fully conscious is not just as hard in a waking state as in a dreaming state.

Proving consciousness - this method does not empirically exist yet. I somehow doubt it ever will unless we find a way to share consciousness between individuals.

I do believe they are as difficult.

okay - first of all: you seem to be pretty biochemics savvy and I would like to kindly ask you if you could point me to online resources which can give me as a layman some insight into the significance of those aspects (Wikipedia does the job? Which keywords? Or other resources?) so I can really follow your points.

I am assuming that the mentioned neurotransmitters and beta waves are both part of what might happen while asleep, too?

No. There is no monoamine neurotransmitter production while asleep. This is why we dream.

I can see that it might be more practical to be kind of reducing consciousness on measurable biochemics. The question you (the general you) would have to deal with beforehand, though, is which kind of brain activity patterns are connected with the feeling of being fully conscious (as determined by subjective assumption) and which patterns are connected to the act of, for example, rational problem solving.

Then you would have a reference of patterns which you could apply to various dreaming state brain conditions and thus make a statement as to the probable level of consciousness.

EDIT: I would like to add that if the mentioned data does not show any significant change of patterns (in waking state) with the individual in a state of perceived consciousness on the one hand or in a state of rational reasoning on the other hand (or other defined states of perceived lower level consciousness) then it might indicate that consciousness as such might be a matter of pure imagination or you could argue that this change of feelings should manifest somewhere in the body physically, thus making the whole thing a search for the right places to examine.

Quite simply, our dreaming state and waking state are rather the exact same except for monoamine neurotransmitter production. These are pertinant neurotransmitters that facilitate our sensory perception and inihibit memories becoming projected perceptions (ie. when you think of a bear, you do not actually see a bear or think it is real just because you think it. However, in dreams, you will see a bear).

You can do a quick search for "monoamine neurotransmitters" but here are a list of the most important ones:
- catecholamines (adrenaline)
- amines (tryptamine)
- melatonin
- etc. etc..
~

Heh, interesting thread...

To define lucid dreaming as a dreaming of a dream, we must understand what a dream is, regardless of lucidity.

A dream...
I would call it an experience that it witnessed by our consciousness (evidently, us).
That experience, can consist of anything, just as life can.
In that case, then indeed a lucid dream is just the witnessing of events that happen. Regardless of control, it shouldn't make a difference.

If the claim, is that the witness is being witnessed, then it is fallacious, as that is not possible.

The witness cannot witness itself, ever. A few minutes of trying to witness the witnessing, should be sufficient proof... only to discover you are trying to witness the witnessing with the original witness, making it as i said, a fallacy.

It is not possible to prove, that control is false. It can only ever be a theory. As we don't even know in real life that we have control, seeing as there are always unlimited possibilities.

I would call it an experience that it witnessed by our consciousness

ClouD - okay, but we are already in the middle of discussing what consciousness actually signifies both in a physical and in a mental way. So, is it really witnessed by consciousness?


O'nus

thanks for the info and keywords on the neurotransmitters. I will do some reading over the weekend and be back...

In the meantime...

- has there ever been an observation of a (waking) state of mind which blocked the emission of these neurotransmitters? Any substances which can do that?

Originally Posted by dreamMeUp

ClouD - okay, but we are already in the middle of discussing what consciousness actually signifies both in a physical and in a mental way. So, is it really witnessed by consciousness?

Ah. Ok.

I think consciousness is the witness.

What defines consciousness?

www.wisegeek.com - Philosophically, at its most basic level, consciousness may be said to be the process of a thinker focusing the thought on some aspect of existence. This may be external or internal, and may exist in the realm we think of as the subconscious (such as dream states). These experiences are collectively known as qualia, and are the building blocks of the philosophical discussion surrounding consciousness.

Hmm, obviously it is a touchy subject... defining things.
Though, i think it applies well at a general level, in this context.

I think that witnessing, is everything, except for the witness.
The witness, is not just the watcher... but the feeler... the taster... the experiencer of all experiences.

I stumbled over the term "qualia" in your quote which I didn't know yet, but read up on wikipedia.

It actually deals with exactly the problem we are being confronted with...: the unaccountability of personal sensation/perception...

unfortunately, the german version is a bit better than the english version, imo, but here goes anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Originally Posted by O'nus

Now please keep in mind that I am simply acting as a discourse catalyst - I do believe in the benefits of lucid dreaming.

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.
~

This is an interesting thread, I remember being around 16 and having this same discussion. Odd to be thinking about it again all these years later.


Of course both lucid dreaming and standard dreaming can mimic the behaviours and products of each other but it is not the products of these mindsets that define these states, it is the quality of the awareness behind the behaviours that define them.

This is no different from saying a happy person can behave as if they are sad and a sad person can behave as if they are happy. The behaviour does not define the state, it may help us recognise the state under normal conditions, but if such behaviours are absent or distorted - it does not eliminate the state itself.

If we confuse the products of states of mind for the state of mind itself, then we create problems such as what has happened here with lucid versus non lucid dreaming.

To me the only difference i see between a lucid and non lucid dream is the quality of the mind interacting with the experience. It is either reflective or reflexive. Which like happiness or sadness are very subjective experiences.
Still, I doubt there is much debate if the states of happiness or sadness exists?

We already know that reflective and reflexive states occur in the waking state. Is it that unlikely that a dreamer too may also experience reflective states? even if, as it seems, this is a less common occurence than the standard reflexive habitual dream?

Why should it be that humans can experience the huge range of waking emotions in the dreaming world, but not experience reflective awareness?

To me the question is the same as saying: can a humanbeing really be sad in a dream? or is it just an illusion of sadness?

Just to make a point. I Dream that i am lucid dreaming all the time.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

The behaviour does not define the state, it may help us recognise the state under normal conditions, but if such behaviours are absent or distorted - it does not eliminate the state itself.

That is a great point, in general. One I fully agree with, but always have a hard time putting into words. I will have to remember to quote you

To me the question is the same as saying: can a human being really be sad in a dream? or is it just an illusion of sadness?

that is a wonderful way to describe it!

I experience an emotive response in cunjunction with an impression that I am interacting with some matrix that I can observe from a perspective that is only limited by itself. If you do not experience lucid dreams, i would say it is ridiculous for one to waste time trying to disprove an existance when they have not yet sufficiently disproved it to themself. Not that I never manage ridiculisity myself .

personally I don't think they exist, in the sense that they are not a dream, in the sense that reality is already a dream. A dream within a dream only being one dream. The awake state is something like enlightenment.

At least thats how it comes out when i try to explain myself.

Lucid dreaming IS lucid dreaming. I've experienced things such as remembering exactly where I'm sleeping and what I'm really wearing in reality when in a dream, remembering stuff I did while awake earlier that day, remembering plans for the LD that I made whether weeks ago or just before going to sleep, contemplating whether to stay awake or not because I remembered I need to wake up for one reason or another then forcefully waking myself up and going to do what I intended, etc. All that is impossible if I "dreamt of lucid dreaming". I also know that I'm not the only one with such experiences.

I'm very often extremely conscious of the curious sensation of bilocation; I have awareness of being in two places, or even two seperate bodies at once, I know I am present in the dream, and yet I know that I also have a presence sleeping in my bed.

well doesnt wilding give you full awareness in a dream? becuase your mind has not fallen asleep yet, it stays awake the whole time.

What a strange thread. Anyway, I was thinking of it, trying to understand this point of view and justify it somehow. And came to this:

Lucidity is awareness of being asleep, and when we lose it, we lose control over our dream-actions. We view them as spontaneous and unconscious without lucidity, so there is direct dependence.

Now, how do we manage to proceed behaving consciously while awake, do we always have to remember that we're awake for that, or is there no such dependence while we're awake?

If we need to be always aware of being awake to act consciously, then it directly mirrors how lucidity works in dreams, and then lucidity can be said to be a real thing. If there's no interdependence, then lucidity can be said to be merely a thought or a dream, because real consciousness works without depending on memory of being awake.

Of course it's far from a 100% proof method to say whether consciousness exists in lucid dreams or not, it's still subjective, but better than nothing

Either way, I can't decide which version is correct.

What do you think, do we always remember that we're awake? Like, when we watch an engrossing movie, are we still aware of being awake at some level? And do we stop acting consciously if\when we forget?

I don't think lucid dreaming has much to do with any particularity of consciousness, but more to do with what you are conscious of.

The only real difference between a regular dream and a lucid dream is the number of options you have available to you. Being aware you are dreaming opens up a whole new range of possiblities, and all it took to achieve that was to focus on the fact that you are in a dream.

Lucid dreams can be just as limited as regular ones, depending on weather the things you are conscious of overwhelm you, preventing the dreamer from being conscious of other things which would provide new possibilities.

It's not how conscious you are or how much consciousness you have, but what you are conscious of.