why is it so hard to understand?

a lucid dream is any dream in which you know you are dreaming while you are dreaming. It doesn't matter if it wasn't vivid. It doesn't matter if its a dream inside a dream. it doesn't matter if you had so little control, you couldn't even control your own feet. If you knew you were dreaming, while you were dreaming, you were lucid dreaming.

Now why couldn't so many of these questions be answered? How can someone learn all about lucid dreaming on a lucid dreaming site without really knowing the definition? I just don't get it. :whyme: the definition is right on the main page!

I feel you, I really do.

No, you're wrong. You have to be IN CONTROL to have a lucid dream.

[/sarcasm]

If things were truly that simple, it'd save us a lot of debate (ofcourse, it'd make things a lot less interesting too).

However, it isn't...

Lets take a look at your definition, shall we?

"a lucid dream is any dream in which you know you are dreaming while you are dreaming."

That sounds fairly clear at first sight, but any study of this definition will tell you it is anything but. Lets look at the two key elements.

Knowledge

Dreaming

So, in order to understand what lucid dreaming is, I have to understand first what 'knowledge' is, and what 'dreaming' is. And that's where the problems start. Try and define knowledge. Try and define dreaming.

Maybe you can. I sure can't. So I decided to call in some help! Dictionaries:



KNOWLEDGE: Knowledge is defined (Oxford English Dictionary) variously as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Philosophical debates in general start with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief". There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories.

Ooops!



So in all actually one of the key elements in our definition is already under contention.

Maybe we'll have more luck with the second element. Once more, I called in the experts:



DREAMING: Neurology of Dreams: There is no universally agreed biological definition of dreaming. General observation shows that dreams are strongly associated with Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, during which an electroencephalogram shows brain activity to be most like wakefulness. Participant-remembered dreams during non-REM sleep are normally more mundane in comparison.[1] During a typical lifespan, a human spends a total of about six years dreaming[2] (which is about 2 hours each night[3]). It is unknown where in the brain dreams originate, if there is a single origin for dreams or if multiple portions of the brain are involved, or the purpose of dreaming is for the body or mind.

Ooops again!



Seems like our second key element in that defintion, is in fact anything but clear as well.

So a lucid dream (?) is a dream (?!!) in which we know (?!!!) that we are dreaming (?!!!!)


Yes, that is very clear indeed... hmm...

Now to those of you who just sort of dabble along in dreaming, try some techniques, have some fun, it doesn't matter. The completely unclear definition will in fact give you enough of a general idea to get along. But if you decide to go seriously investigate your dreams, you will very quickly come to the conclusion that our conventional definitions are just completely inadequate to describe the full range of lucid experiences one can have.

-Redrivertears-

what about the definition of know? isnt it to have an understanding of something?
so it would be "a lucid dream is a dream in which we have an understanding that we are dreaming while we are dreaming" or if that doesnt work then we could always put "a lucid dream is a dream that we are concsiously aware of the fact that we are dreaming, while we are dreaming."

but thats besides the point. although we can't define knowledge and dreaming, we still understand what they mean. i dont know anyone that doesnt know what dreaming or knowledge is. if people would just take 5 min. to think about the dream and the definition of a lucid dream, then they would be able to figure it out. The problem is that people don't look up the actual definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freefire

a lucid dream is any dream in which you know you are dreaming while you are dreaming. It doesn't matter if it wasn't vivid. It doesn't matter if its a dream inside a dream. it doesn't matter if you had so little control, you couldn't even control your own feet. If you knew you were dreaming, while you were dreaming, you were lucid dreaming.

Now why couldn't so many of these questions be answered? How can someone learn all about lucid dreaming on a lucid dreaming site without really knowing the definition? I just don't get it. :whyme: the definition is right on the main page!

---

thats the whole point!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by b12

No, you're wrong. You have to be IN CONTROL to have a lucid dream.

[/sarcasm]

---

we dont need to control a whole world, to say that we are living..
we dont need to control whole dream to say that we are lucid in dream..

knowing, understanding that we living, or in dream, that we are dreaming is enough...
else is just in degrees..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freefire

but thats besides the point. although we can't define knowledge and dreaming, we still understand what they mean.

---

No we don't. We really don't. We have a vague general conception of what they mean, which is all very well and good in normal situations, but once you start pushing the line, skirting the edge, its just not that simple.

The issues of knowledge, awareness, consciousness, and dreaming have been the subject of debate and argument since before the time of the Ancient Greeks. It's been a constant ideological clash in history, on philosophical, psychological, medicinal, moral, etical, religious, spiritual and theoretical level for well over 2000 years.

And you claim we know what they mean?

Take your original definition again. A lucid dream is a dream in which we know we are dreaming.

Fine, then I put to you that all our dreams are lucid dreams. Why? Our bodies go through a lot of changes while we sleep and dream. Our brains react, or physiology adapts. That coud imply knowledge on a biological level. Not conscious knowledge, certainly, but who says all knowledge has to be conscious. In fact, pointing back to the dictionary defintion of knowledge, note that it says "theoretical or practical understanding of the subject.". Certainly, the physiological changes our bodies go through during the various dream cycles are just that... practical.

Sure, from a distance, it all looks very clear and well cut, but once you look up close, you begin to see the cracks in the foundation.

-Redrivertears-

dreaming is what happens every night while you are sleeping. The most vivid dreams are happen during REM. That is all you need to know. We dont have to go that deep. If someone comes up to you and says "I had a dream last night" you arent left in utter confusion thinking "dream? whats a dream? people have been arguing about dreams for 2000 years! i can't possibly know what it is!" Well i know what they are talking about anyway. I dont know about you.

and as for the definition, a lucid dream is a dream in which we know we are dreaming while we are dreaming there is a big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red

Fine, then I put to you that all our dreams are lucid dreams. Why? Our bodies go through a lot of changes while we sleep and dream. Our brains react, or physiology adapts. That coud imply knowledge on a biological level. Not conscious knowledge, certainly, but who says all knowledge has to be conscious. In fact, pointing back to the dictionary defintion of knowledge, note that it says "theoretical or practical understanding of the subject.". Certainly, the physiological changes our bodies go through during the various dream cycles are just that... practical.

---

if you are going to use that arguement, then ill just point you to this definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

"a lucid dream is a dream that we are concsiously aware of the fact that we are dreaming, while we are dreaming."

---

k does it make sense now?

LOL freefire, what just happened?

LOL

i dont know :chuckle: fixed it though XD

dreaming is what happens every night while you are sleeping. The most vivid dreams are happen during REM. That is all you need to know.

That doesn't even say anything about dreaming at all. Explaining WHEN something happens is nowhere near the same as explaining what it is.

And its not all you need to know. If it was, people wouldn't be so confused. People flood these forums daily with questions about whether a certain experience was lucid or not, whether a certain experience was even a dream or not. Wild experiences, hypnagogic sensations that happen right at the edge of sleeping and waking, hypnopompic experiences where dreamimages overlap your first waking sensations. All these things skirt the very edge of what dreaming is.

Was it a dream, wasn't it a dream, was it lucid, wasn't it lucid? If for you the answer is always a clear cut yes or no, then you obviously have completely different dream and sleeping experiences then I have.

people have been arguing about dreams for 2000 years! i can't possibly know what it is!" Well i know what they are talking about anyway. I dont know about you.

Congratulations! I suggest you call The Nobel foundation right now, because if you can prove what you just said, you will be the next winner with absolute certainty!

"a lucid dream is a dream that we are concsiously aware of the fact that we are dreaming, while we are dreaming."

All you've done now is introduce a third undefined element in the equation. Not only do we not know what dreaming is, or awareness is, now you've made things even more complex by adding consciousness!

But hey, I've been in this long enough to know that obviously, we've reached that point where the debate revolves about trying to justify your own viewpoint, not listen to anothers. So I suggest you hold on to your belief, and I'll hold on to mine. I'll leave it at that and wish you happy nighttime explorations.

-Redrivertears-

can you describe tastes? take salty for example. describe to me the taste salty. I can't. But i know what salty is because i have experienced the taste.

In the end, everything comes down to undescribed things. try describing night. night is what happens when the sun goes down and the sky gets dark. Well what is dark? dark is the absences of light. Well what is light?

see?

we have experienced knowlege, we have experienced dreaming, and we have experienced concsiousness. So we use these to describe lucid dreaming. We dont need to have 100% correct definitions to understand.


i hope you aren't getting angry with me. i understand your point of view, and i know that lucid dreaming can be hard to explain. But I dont think we are capable of finding a better definition, and i think the main reason why people dont understand is not because they dont understand the definition, its because they dont research it. :wink:

Alright, just one more then, because you've given such a great analogy :)

"can you describe tastes? take salty for example. describe to me the taste salty. I can't. But i know what salty is because i have experienced the taste."

And therein exactly lies the problem. You know what lucidity is, because you've tasted it. I know what lucidity is, because I've tasted it, but what about those that haven't.

Is it really that surprising that they come and ask? When all they have to go on is some empty definition, which doesn't convey the essence of the thing at all. Is it surprising they get confused, is it surprising that the definition, for them, isn't enough?

But it gets even better.

Sure, when you're eating sugar, it's clear that you're not eating salt. And when you're eating a mouthful of nothing but salt, it's clear that you are in fact, eating salt.

But what of all the dishes inbetween? What of the masterful five course dinner that the cook at the restaurant just conjured up. Was there salt in it? Hmm, I think so... maybe... maybe not. What about the dinner your wife or husband cooks to you when you come home from work. "Honey, did you put salt with the potatoes?"

Dreams, in my experience, are like that. Sure, some of them are clear-cut and obvious. Some of them are obviously salted, to continue the analogy, and some of them are completely without salt. But what about all the ones in between? Where they may be some salt in between that bouquet of tastes that you've just experienced. Or isn't there? Maybe I'm just imagining it.

And what about things that taste salty, but aren't exactly food. What about salted drinks? What about salted sea water. There's salt there, but is actually still classified as nutricious. Again, same way with dream experiences. How far can you go to still call a dream a dream. Yeah, sure it was salted, but was it actually a dream, or was it something else?

and i think the main reason why people dont understand is not because they dont understand the definition, its because they dont research it.

Whereas I think the main reason they don't understand it is because the definition doesn't capture the thing at all. In fact, I think the definition is so completely vague and essence-less, it can be used to encompass just about any dreamexperience.

So to me, its not laziness on their part, or a lack of information that they have. Rather, its the impossibility of trying to get to something that needs to be experienced (just like the taste of salt). And I can understand very well why people get confused, and why these questions keep popping up over and over and over.

-Redrivertears-

well..no one cares to change poing of view, or simply try to understand, then they already think they understand it.. dont try to convince everybody to get same understanding like yours... :)
i just want to say you are not alone with such understanding.. :)

Off topic here.

i'm just posting here to say freefire's avatar is awesome, very cool man!

ill just drop it right after this.

Red i do agree with one thing. Lucidity cannot be fully described with its definition. My first lucid experience practiclly blew me away! just the relization that i was lucid, and the amazing vividness of it can't be described in the definition. But i have also had lucid dreams that were very dull and pointless. Lucid dreams have so many different flavors that using the definition can become difficult.

but the definition is also very simple. we just hand them a spoonful of salt and say "if you ever taste this again, then you know it was a lucid dream!" I admit that some dreams with the dreamer asking if they were lucid have so many flavors that its hard to taste the salt, but most of the dreams are just plain as day! its like they didnt even taste the salt to begin with!

anyway thats my two cents :P and if i keep on going im going to just go on forever. i should have just stopped when you asked :chuckle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by secret neo

Off topic here.

i'm just posting here to say freefire's avatar is awesome, very cool man!

---

thankyou :D

RedRiver, if a dream is the least bit salty, it's a lucid dream. The instant you get even the slightest hint that you're in a dream, and use it to realize just that, then you're lucid.
You can not compare non-salt, a bit of salt and a lot of salt, with non-lucid, lucid and very lucid.

There is nothing inbetween non-lucid and lucid. You can't be half-lucid. You can be at different levels of awareness and control though.

What I'm saying, is that explaining what lucidity is to a person, who doesn't know what it is like, is actually possible, compared to explain the taste or the smell of an object.
In example, if I tell you an optic mouse is a mouse, that does not have one of those rubber balls, but a red light, then you fully understand. If there is no light, then we're on another level, talking about lasers.
Lucidity is an expression, not a physical thing you can take, smell, see, taste or hear.

If there is no ball, but a red light, it's an optic mouse.
If you're aware that you're dreaming, then you're lucid.

If there is no ball, but not a red light either, then it is most likely a laser mouse (still optical).
If you're aware that you're dreaming, but don't quite feel lucid, then you are still lucid, since you know you are dreaming (a different level of awareness).

See my point?

I imagine another reason people ask this is that if their experience falls short of their expectations, they will want conformation. Given that they probably read dozens of posts with things like "More real than real life" and "Most amazing feeling I've ever experienced", their own 2 second Lucid dream of stumbling around a deep fog may be kind of underwhelming.

Although if the person's first lucid dream is of the better "Ultra-realistic euphoria" variety (Mine sure weren't), I suppose It should be pretty obvious.

Quote:

---

we dont need to control a whole world, to say that we are living..
we dont need to control whole dream to say that we are lucid in dream..

---

Good metaphore man.
I am new to these forums but I made a point to learn all about lucid dreaming and the acronyms before I started posting, that way I was sure what I was saying isn't false or just stupid.

As i have understood it over the past 10 years for me to be lucid i have to no that i am dreaming if not then my subcontuse takes over and has a field day with me.

Marvo got it exactly. I've never understood how you can be "half" lucid, or "a little" lucid... you either know you're dreaming or you don't. It's very simple.

Thank you freefire for making this topic, maybe newbs will see this before they post a topic questioning if they were lucid or not

Now, what if you had a dream you became lucid, but not actually became lucid? What if I was just a spectator, watching as my subconscious self recognized that he was dreaming and went and did whatever he wanted, while I was left watching? That's what I've been having trouble with lately.

Quote:

---

Now, what if you had a dream you became lucid, but not actually became lucid?

---

just ask yourself, "did i know i was dreaming" if you knew you were dreaming, then it was a lucid dream. it doesnt matter if its a dream inside a dream inside a dream. You were dreaming, and you bacame aware of the fact that you were dreaming, while you were dreaming.

The simple definition of lucidity isn't satisfying enough for some. They feel the need to have more control--at least over their own thought. In my opinion, if your lucid dream morphs from the original intention of "flying" to "trying to fit the neighbor's dog into a pickle jar," something has gone wrong with your lucidity!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abra

The simple definition of lucidity isn't satisfying enough for some. They feel the need to have more control--at least over their own thought. In my opinion, if your lucid dream morphs from the original intention of "flying" to "trying to fit the neighbor's dog into a pickle jar," something has gone wrong with your lucidity!

---

nothing was wrong with your lucidity, unless you forgot you were dreaming. Something would be very wrong with you control though.

In that situation, you may have known that you were dreaming, but you probably forgot what that meant.

When I told my folks about lucid dreaming, one brought up an interesting point. He claimed he always knew he was dreaming, otherwise he wouldn't be doing such odd stuff in his dreams. I rebuked that we probably always know that we are dreaming (for our own safety in real life, we must instinctively know when we dream. Think about it.), but we hardly ever realize what that knowledge means.

"I always know I'm dreaming. Otherwise I wouldn't be doing such odd things!"
"You don't really know you're dreaming. Otherwise, why waste your time on such odd things?"

Really, the only black and white part of this case seems to be the people's viewpoints on each side of the case.

I agree on the point that control, vividness, ect. don't effect if you are lucid or not. Rather, it is the amount of awareness that it is a dream. Let me make this easier by defining a semi-lucid. Since a full lucid is defined by conscious realization of your dream state, we can define semi lucidity as "being partially aware that you are in a dream" or, more accurately, "Knowing your are dreaming while inside a dream without coming to a conscious realization."

I have had many dreams that follow this quite well. I've had situations where out of the blue I explain a random event by telling a DC "oh, don't worry, thats just because this is a dream." but those are just words to my "conscious self" and full lucidity is not there. It's almost like doublethink, if you know what that is. You know that you can do things because it is a dream but it is the real world at the same time. And no, before you say it. These are not just non-lucids with control. Theres a huge difference. The process of doublethink ensures that there are both all the laws of the reals world present yet at the same time there are no laws present.

Anyhow, I think thats enough trying to explain the semi for now. And by all means, think in black and white. Think that there are just lucids and non-lucids if you like. Just realize that there are different levels of non-lucidity that lead right up to the door of full lucidity. Call it a non-lucid if you will, it's still called a semi lucid to me.

HA nice one. The guys right at the end of the day its all going to come down to peoples views on the matter. no one is really right or wrong with it. The pionts which are right are the common pionts only because everyone will agree with them and then say that the pionts are right because of everyone agreeing with them.