Thread: Day Dreaming and Lucid Dreaming...Connection?

I still say that if a LDer says they don't daydream, they're proof that there's no connection between daydreaming and LDing. So then it doesn't matter what people daydream about. You getting it now? If every LDer says they daydream, THEN there's no basis for this theory. But yes, a formal survey would have to be conducted using all kinds of people. This site caters to dreamers.

Originally Posted by Paradox-db3

I still say that if a LDer says they don't daydream, they're proof that there's no connection between daydreaming and LDing. So then it doesn't matter what people daydream about. You getting it now? If every LDer says they daydream, THEN there's no basis for this theory. But yes, a formal survey would have to be conducted using all kinds of people. This site caters to dreamers.

But if you don't know what the connection is, how can you say that?

Anyway, I'm not arguing about this, I'm just saying why I didn't post. Plus, "So there's really nothing to be gained except personal accounts of those who choose to respond."

One dreamer? Is one dreamer going to be enough for you? This goes back to the fact that a topic, on a forum with 1,700 active members is not large enough to hold this kind of investigation. Even if one person told you they don't daydream, that doesn't mean there isn't a connection. I don't put it past scientists to find one, if they haven't already.

I actually read a really interesting article about daydreams the other day. I'll try to find it again; it was really thought provoking.

I'm one LDer that rarely daydreams. I tend to be very focused during the day. My mind only wanders when I go to bed.

I'm with Shift and Snowy though. I don't think this can really tell you anything definitively.

Well, it can tell me that daydreaming has nothing to do with lucid dreaming, if there is a lucid dreamer who does not daydream, like yourself.

It's really not that hard to figure out...let's say a primitive society wants to know if there's a connection between gravity and sunlight. In the mid day sun, they each throw a ball up in the air, and the ball falls every time. Thus, they conclude that the sunlight has something to do with this. The size of the ball does not matter. Nor does the color. Just that they have all agreed that the sunlight plays a crucial role in making the ball come back down. Now, one of those people...yes, just one...throws a ball into the sky at night time, and the ball still comes down. Just because 99% of the people threw their ball up during the day, doesn't mean there's a connection between daylight and gravity. Because now, there's one person who proves that daylight has nothing to do with it. Is it...c-l-i-c-k-i-n-g...in yet?

So now, if there's one lucid dreamer...just one...who can have lucid dreams and not be in the practice of daydreaming, that must mean there's no connection. There must be another common factor. Lucid dreams and daydreams must have nothing to do with each other, even if 99% of lucid dreamers daydream. It just makes such clear sense to me. Am I being misunderstood, or is my logic flawed?

Anyway, John11, thank you. You have given me enough reason to believe that daydreams are not a prerequisite to attaining lucidity.

***EDIT***

The basic method for testing any theory is to first come up with a theory and then test it in more than one way, unless it fails after the first test, in which case it is deemed not a fact, as this theory of mine. And testing the theory with a group of dreaming enthusiasts is, indeed, a great place to start, after thinking on it some more.

What I meant when I asked what Daydreaming was, I meant, is it actually dreaming during the day or just having visualisations/fantazing or whatever you want to call it?

Originally Posted by Paradox-db3

Well, it can tell me that daydreaming has nothing to do with lucid dreaming, if there is a lucid dreamer who does not daydream, like yourself.

It's really not that hard to figure out...let's say a primitive society wants to know if there's a connection between gravity and sunlight. In the mid day sun, they each throw a ball up in the air, and the ball falls every time. Thus, they conclude that the sunlight has something to do with this. The size of the ball does not matter. Nor does the color. Just that they have all agreed that the sunlight plays a crucial role in making the ball come back down. Now, one of those people...yes, just one...throws a ball into the sky at night time, and the ball still comes down. Just because 99% of the people threw their ball up during the day, doesn't mean there's a connection between daylight and gravity. Because now, there's one person who proves that daylight has nothing to do with it. Is it...c-l-i-c-k-i-n-g...in yet?

So now, if there's one lucid dreamer...just one...who can have lucid dreams and not be in the practice of daydreaming, that must mean there's no connection. There must be another common factor. Lucid dreams and daydreams must have nothing to do with each other, even if 99% of lucid dreamers daydream. It just makes such clear sense to me. Am I being misunderstood, or is my logic flawed?

Anyway, John11, thank you. You have given me enough reason to believe that daydreams are not a prerequisite to attaining lucidity.

***EDIT***

The basic method for testing any theory is to first come up with a theory and then test it in more than one way, unless it fails after the first test, in which case it is deemed not a fact, as this theory of mine. And testing the theory with a group of dreaming enthusiasts is, indeed, a great place to start, after thinking on it some more.

It's not c-l-i-c-k-i-n-g yet. This is hardly a theory, like your many other posts. Again, if you have no idea what the connection between the two is, how can you possibly say that one LDer who doesn't daydream means anything? If you are going to keep talking about science and logic, then you should probably learn more about scientific logic and reasoning.

Perhaps those who frequently daydream often have a higher chances of being lucid dreamers. Sometimes, but not always. So why would one person trump your hypothesis? Maybe because you are thinking in black and white, and the answer is grey. Maybe there are 200000 lucid dreamers who daydream and twelve who don't. And maybe there are 6billion daydreamers who rarely daydream, but aren't lucid dreamers, and then some who do often, but don't LD? You haven't drawn from a large enough or random enough sample to even begin to look at it in terms of logic or legitimacy. Not to mention, there are oddities and outliers in every situation. Not to mention, liars. If you don't know what causes lucid dreaming, or what causes daydreaming, how can you even talk about them in such a manner? If you have no idea what the connection is, you can't say why or if it's relevant. Maybe it's like synesthesia, so luciddreamer=daydreamer, but that one person is some sort of mutant who doesn't have that connection. Who knows. All you can say now, assuming that there is no way that that one person who doesn't daydream is some sort of mutation or god knows what, if you are sampling from a group of clones, is that being a lucid dreamer does not always mean that you are currently an avid daydreamer. This is why you are supposed to do research before you conduct an experiment or survey. What about people who daydreamed when they were younger? Do these participants have to actively daydream, or passively daydream? How are you even defining daydream in this context? I never even heard what defined a daydream, so I couldn't add my daydreaming status.

Either way, your scientific logic is full of holes.

I day dream, but not that often. I day dreamed more before. But lets say I am going to do something that might change something in my life then I will go over it in a fantasy in my head over and over again in different ways to see the outcome.

You're logic is flawed. One person is not enough to go on. Besides, he said he rarely daydreams, not doesn't daydream at all.

Unless you do something like a survey of dreamers on, again, a large scale, you may get some material for this. But again, what would that prove? Just because they're may be some dreamers that don't daydream much, that doesn't disprove the theory of a link between LDs and daydreams. If there is, maybe we just haven't found it yet, and vise-versa.

I'm still looking for that daydream article.

The better you can daydream, the better you can lucid dream.

There's this online school, which teaches you the art of memory, it's about visualizing all information into a dream, and remember it that way. The members of this school also confirm that this practise improves lucidity and lucid dreaming. www.pmemory.com for a free e-book.

If you think about it yourself, it's only logical. The better you can dream, the better you can dream.. who would've guessed?

I have always had vivid daydreams.

This morning, i was having a running scenario day dream, and i fell of my bike, just starting to pedal, right in front of my door because i was too involved in my day dream.

Originally Posted by Paradox-db3

It just makes such clear sense to me. Am I being misunderstood, or is my logic flawed?

well, reading some of your other posts here, i'd say your logic is beyond flawed!

Originally Posted by Paradox-db3

Am I being misunderstood, or is my logic flawed?

With all due respect your logic is flawed.

If one person who never daydreams has a lucid dream then that is proof that daydreaming is not a pre-requisite for lucid dreaming, but it is not proof that the two are not connected.

Consider this: Scientific studies have shown smokers to have a higher incidence of cancer than nonsmokers. But someone who has never smoked a cigarette in their life can still die of cancer.

Hey thanks again for your nice comments in my thread xx

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

Hey thanks again for your nice comments in my thread xx

No problem! I seem to be collecting a number of haters. I'm sorry if I'm coming across wrong. I'm refering to 16candles, who accused me of being a jerk in another thread. I'm really a nice guy, just let my humor get away on me sometimes!

Anyway, as per the current thread topic, I'll let it go, even though I stand by my original thinking. But thank you everyone for shedding light on the subject!

Originally Posted by Paradox-db3

No problem! I seem to be collecting a number of haters. I'm sorry if I'm coming across wrong. I'm refering to 16candles, who accused me of being a jerk in another thread. I'm really a nice guy, just let my humor get away on me sometimes!

Anyway, as per the current thread topic, I'll let it go, even though I stand by my original thinking. But thank you everyone for shedding light on the subject!

Hey there

Yeah I saw the jerk comment in that thread You are a sweetie, but unfortunately that second post of yours wasn't your finest moment which was a shame because your first post was excellent. You'll see I attempted some humour myself, twice, but the fists were flying too fast for anyone to notice! Seems to be sorted now. I think my last post diffused things a bit

I hear what you're saying about some people being "serious" types. Before I mention LDing to someone I can pretty much predict from their personality the reaction I will get. I have spoken to a wide variety of people about it at work and in my social life. The reactions are mixed. Most people are very intrigued and interested. However there was one person who was completely dismissive of my claims to be able to remain awake whilst dreaming and refused to believe it was possible. That person was a bit of a know-it-all type personality. The irony is he's an anaethesiologist. One would have expected him to be interested in the concept rather than closed-minded.

I think if there's a connection to be made between LD and personality types it would be that the people more likely to achieve LD would have the following characteristics: open-mindedness, a sense of fun and adventure, creativity, good motivation and a plenty of spare time to sleep in.