Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div>

To again reiterate!

To elaborate on Placabo's point on La'Berges study.
In a controled environment. He was hooked up to Positron emmision tomogrophy (PET) or brain imaging scans. As well as an FMRI. A functional magnectic resonance image. In short, to show what part of the brain was active during his REM period. [/b]
My local library, to my surprise, had 'The dream machine' by Keith hearne where he mentions being the first person to do these tests. I've just started reading it.

Originally posted by Howetzer@

To prove to the researchers that he indeed was not manifesting this Lucidity and was in fact in control of his actions he predetermined his actions prior to sleep. He set out, opon going to sleep that when he becomes Lucid that he will show his control by moving his eyes back and forth in succession in seperate intervals. Since the eyes are the only physical function that is not subject to sleep paralysis. As the machines had shown just has in any other subject that he was in REM sleep. He performed what he said he was going to do.
The machines readings correlated with predetermined REM dream-state levels when he signalled. Does not PROVE he was lucid dreaming. You cannot rule out that although he met the machines criteria of being in a dream state, he still had a degree of awakeness to send the signal. Some meditators are able to change their brain wave patterns into a deep delta, dream like state, and yet are not in a paralysed state. This brain imaging and eeg stuff is not a nailed down science as far as i know. Depends a lot on callibration and they vary a lot depending on how they are used and how their data interpreted.

<!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer

Also If you truely had a Lucid dream I feel you would understand conscousness from unconsciousness. I am as subjective as they come and awareness is awareness and control is control.
I've heard people say the same thing about 'seeing or feeling God truly for the first time'. They say \"you can't know until you experience it. Then you will never doubt again\". They may be right, but it is not objective proof of anything, which is my point.

Originally posted by Howetzer

To add to that there are thousands of people who opon having a lucid dream are in concert with one another about its subjectivness.
There are thousands of people who are in 'concert' that they have been snatched one night by aliens and anally probed, tested and returned to earth. People say the same thing about NDE's & OBE's. \"Peoples accounts of these are so similar, even when they are on other sides of the world, that it must be true\" But pyschological, emotional, biological and subliminal factors common to the human race may come into play in these accounts.

Originally posted by Howetzer
To still subjectivley see lucid dreaming as an interpretation is intirely valid. For it seems that is what it is. But take into consideration that so to is your waking life.
We could argue all day about the nature of reality and is their such a thing as 'objective' proof but I take as the yard stick scientific method in determining objective proof. I like putting ld up to this criteria to get another view on the whole thing. Peoples testimonials about ld's are certainly fascinating but they are not in themselves proof. Even if I had the most transcendent amazing ld (and I think the one I had was pretty low on the ld scale - perhaps not even a true ld) I would still maintain an open mind about it perhaps being a quirk of my brain.