Regarding the LaBerge study, it did offer some evidence that dream time is generally consistent with waking time, however as archdreamer correctly pointed out, it doesn't "prove" anything. Researchers are trained to be conservative in drawing conclusions from their research, and we should be as well. Anyway, here is a brief summary by LaBerge that I found on the Lucidity Institute website, as well as references for the full articles for anyone who cares to peruse them.
...
How long do dreams take? This question has intrigued humanity for many centuries. A traditional answer was that dreams take very little or no time at all, as in the case of Maury's famous dream in which he had somehow gotten mixed up in a long series of adventures during the French Revolution, finally losing his head on the guillotine, at which point he awoke to find the headboard had fallen on his neck. He supposed, therefore that the lengthy dream had been produced in a flash by the painful stimulus. The idea that dreams occur in the moment of awakening has found supporters over the years (e.g., Hall,1981).
We have straightforwardly approached the problem of dream time by asking subjects to estimate ten second intervals (by counting, "one thousand and one, one thousand and two, etc.") during their lucid dreams. Signals marking the beginning and end of the subjective intervals allowed comparison with objective time. In all cases, time estimates during the lucid dreams were very close to the actual time between signals (LaBerge, 1980a, 1985). However, this finding does not rule out the possibility of time distortion effects under some circumstances.
...
References
LaBerge, S. (1980a). Lucid dreaming: An exploratory study of consciousness during sleep. (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1980). (University Microfilms International No. 80-24,691).
LaBerge, S. (1985). Lucid dreaming. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher.
Of course, the subjective and highly personal nature of experiencing dreams makes it hard to draw any definitive conclusions about dream time. After all, if someone claims to have experienced 60 years of experience in a 10 minute dream, who are we to tell them that they didn't? Obviously we should approach these claims with a healthy dose of skepticism, but in the end we really just don't have the technology or techniques to refute or validate them.
 Originally Posted by prometheuspan
Apparently you did not study your REM sleep.
...
You people really should get more research done
 Originally Posted by prometheuspan
Could you cite your sources for these conclusions? I'd be very interested in reading them.
---------
ppan. No, can't do that. Not prepared to be lucid dreaming expert, its not
anything i keep files for.
Your tactics of treating your conclusions as "common knowledge" and of rejecting the burden of proof are, of course, fallacious. If you refuse to provide any support for your claims and cannot offer any credentials that might allow us to take you at your word, then we really have no choice but to disregard your claims.
 Originally Posted by prometheuspan
The exterior interface with the matrix is limited in time experience to the sampling rate of the senses and the processing rate of the brain. No such limitations exist in brodmann brain area communications.
 Originally Posted by prometheuspan
Think about it in terms of pure biochemical messaging.
Why would the brain be limited by real time in a brain to brain communication?
Why is my PC limited by real time in processing information without accessing the internet? Because it still has to communicate within itself (i.e. between components) in order to process information, which is a fast process, but not infinitely fast.
Similarly: why would the brain be limited by real time in brain to brain communication? Because it still has to communicate within itself (i.e. between different regions of the brain, including but not limited to the Brodmann brain areas, as you refer to them) in order to process information, which is a fast process, but not infinitely fast. Your assertion that "no such limitations exist in brodmann brain area communications" is entirely at odds with modern brain science. Information processing in your brain is achieved through the involvement of and communication between multiple, distinct brain areas. You seem to be stating that information processing in your brain is not limited by your brain processing speed - which, unless I am misunderstanding you, defies common sense. You instruct us to think of the issue in terms of biochemical messaging, which you apparently believe to be an instantaneous process. This is not the case.
Furthermore, while it's certainly true that experienced waking time is limited by the "sampling rate" of the senses, it's not necessarily true that dreaming time is not. It's certainly possible, however there is also evidence that dreaming senses are limited by waking senses. For example, people who are born blind will have dreams without vision, and it is documented that people who lose their sense of sight will gradually begin having sightless dreams. Given these limitations on dream sight, it is not hard to imagine that our dreaming sense of time is similarly restricted by the waking "sampling rate" of the senses.
By the way, referring to sensing the outside world as "interfacing with the matrix" isn't helping your credibility any. 
 Originally Posted by prometheuspan
Give me the specifics of the test and i'll tell you where its making the mistake.
So you've condemned the research without even looking at it? And you don't see any problem with this approach? 
As I mentioned earlier in my post, I am reserved in my opinions about time dilation in dreams, since we are ill equipped to offer conclusive evidence for or against these claims. You mentioned that you have had some experiences with dream time dilation. I have no problem with your beliefs - who am I to tell you what you did or did not experience? - however, I am "scandalously floored" by your fallacious reasoning and by the contemptuous tone of your initial post.
|
|
Bookmarks