Talk:Lucid dream

	This psychology related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This Erraou stuff looks like complete and utter bunk. Mostly blogs trying to sell shit. ^{d hominem} 16:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yah its raising my red flags too, maybe the editor that added it could defend why it deserves special mention? Is the material he added elsewhere on the internet (I.E. is it a copy paste?). Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely looks dodgy - and the awful grammar doesn't help either. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is a "viral theory"? Edit: and looking at a few of these references, it's definitely nonsense. They claim that you can gain telepathic and telekinetic powers. One also repeats this idiotic claim that we're only using 10% of our brains. Just blog posts, and the rest are WP links that simply offer definitions of some terms, not facts to back the claims up. Röstigraben (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Now the question is shall we do an actual article on it? Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bunk is what the wiki's all about. I say go for it. --Danfly (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded, I'll look into it later. An old flatmate of mine used to be into this and told me about it a few times, but I didn't really pay attention...it sounded mostly esoteric back then, too. Röstigraben (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comeon Guys-to all those with scientific knowledge this is actually quite a plausible idea :)

And also, if there is any grammatical erros, please help me correct them-or at least point them out. I just want this theory to be recognised that's all...Don't be haters guys, we are all bro's :)

Peace. Swe41 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and also, I never claimed that it would gain telekenetic powers, I said that it was merely a possiblity :), thanks for your concerns guys Swe41 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

oh yer, and the lucid dreams article did look pretty small, so I thought that It would be ok that I should add theory to this-Please believe me, im not trying to sell anything or promote anything, I just want this theory to be seen and recognised by the scientific world :) thanks guys for your time, and please keep it up, you guys are sooo much cooler than the guys at wikipedia Swe41 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Soo, is it ok if I could get the slot, it is a plausible theory, and I make a personal promise to all of you that I am not trying to sell anything or promote anything, I just want this theory to be recognised...Please!!! Swe41 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

sry, this is rationalwiki--Brxbrx (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please guys, the theory is rational, I do use recognised terms of the subconscious and conscious, as well as describing in depth the process in which the two combine, as well as talking about lucid dreaming, which was an idea presented by Stephen Laberge...See it is rational!!! please!!!!Let us not argue anymore. Swe41 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets step through this carefully. Can you please give us what you think is the best source describing the validity of this method? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry Tmtoulouse, i really am, but i have to go now, I am not trying to avoid you, I am actually hoping to provide you with the neccesary sources first thing tomorrow :) Well, I have to be going, so I'll speak to you guys tomorrow, but please please please dont take down my section, it is rational, plausible, i do know what i am talking about, I would never think about taking down a section that any of you have written. Peace Guys Swe41 (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think what's so special about this apart from using sexy words like "conscious" and "subconscious". Someone got to simulate the other personas in the dream, obviously the idea that they don't stem from you would be completely anti-rational, therefore the other personas in the dream stem from you. However since you don't know what they will say beforehands it is essentially like talking with yourself yet with a seperate process you don't have concious control over informing their answers, therefore -bam "talking to the subconcious".

The only bit I REALLY have a problem with, is the last paragraph which implies that the subconcious has control over / has anything to do whatsoever with heartbeat, breathing and that you can mess it up with dreaming. Dreaming, no matter how complicated, is a cerebrum activity, while autonomic functions are, well, autonomous. The heart in fact has nothing to do with the brain whatsoever and has its own system on board (it can beat outside the body as well, and the speeding up/down is regulated by hormones) and breathing is a bit of a dual control, but with the autonomic system again always having higher priority, which is why you can never "hold your breath" to death. Sen (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Swe41. Do think you could explain your main points here on the talk page before putting it in the article? Otherwise it's difficult to see what the debate is about as it gets cut from the article which makes refrencing the points difficult. Thanks.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's just the one guy trying to push his own 'theory' on several different websites. There's already a discussion on wikihow about it and it looks like Swe41=Samir41=Samir Erraou. You will find most sources mentioning it have similar names attached to them. --Danfly (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, seems like the same thing happened at Wikipedia as well. He's obviously out to dump this nonsense on as many wikis as possible, and then try to use each as references for the others to make it seem credible. If his behaviour elsewhere is any indication, don't expect him to come up with any real argument or evidence. Röstigraben (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

About lucid dreaming

I've had brief lucid dreams a couple of times by chance, but always woken up pretty quickly which is very disappointing. Supposedly there are ways of training your mind to get into & maintain lucid dreams more often, which seems a plausible enough idea, but I've never heard from anybody very credible who's done this. Unfortunately many of the people interested in lucid dreaming seem to be cranks who claim it's a gateway to astral projection or past life regression & other such piffle. It would be interesting if there were more legitimate studies of the phenomenon. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There are, both the Blackmore article and the SkepDic entry cite a few. LaBerge and Gackenbach's edited volume is apparently the most comprehensive, and there are some papers as well. It's not the most active field, but there's enough material to make it seem legit. Röstigraben (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been very interested in stages of sleep when moving from fully awake to fully asleep. There is this strange "free association" phase that has gotten a lot of attention in sleep research that is different than typical rem sleep. The dreams tend to be much more abstract, jump around a lot, and oriented more towards problem solving. Anyway, that has nothing to do exactly with lucid dreaming but I have been focusing a lot on trying to capture and remember these pre-sleep moments myself. This focus on sleep and maintaining some memory of it all has increased significantly the number of semi-lucid moments I have in dreams.

By semi-lucid I mean I have almost never had a fully lucid moment where I not only know I am dreaming, but am thinking fully rationally and logically about it. I know I am dreaming, I know I can control the dream to some extent but some interesting things happen:

• I think that the other people in my dream are the real person sharing the dream. So I will comment to them how weird it is that we are both in the same dream.
• I am constrained by parameters of the dream world. I am dreaming I am in a building, know its a dream and decide I want to "fly" in order to do so I have to leave the building through some door or window, I never just teleport out or anything.
• My decisions are fairly stereotyped, while I am lucid I have a tendency to do the same things in the dream world, initiate the same conversations with dream people, decide to fly around, etc. These are things that I have thought about doing during my waking time, or are "typical" things to do. I am not really doing new and interesting things, almost as if habit systems are dominating.

I think a lot of this is because the pre-frontal cortex is just comatose during this period, so even "lucid" moments have a tendency to be dominated by lower level cognitive processing so you get these real stereotyped responses. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had dozens of these over the years, and while I'm usually like you and act largely similarly to my usual manner, I often find myself diving into it and doing things that I'd never normally do. This usually takes the form of, for instance, being in the public gallery at the House of Commons and suddenly standing up and shouting "You can't just do this and.... etc" or ranting to bosses / former teachers, etc. And yes, there's the odd one where I suddenly realise "Hey - this is a dream so I can reach out and feel that girl's...[censored]".

I often find that I lose concentration and drift back out of the lucid state. I'll be doing something consciously then be distracted by something else and go with that for a while. Suddenly I realise that I can't get back to the other part of the dream, and I either wake up or (presumably) drift off into normal dreaming that's no longer lucid.

Even having had these dreams so often, I still find them very weird. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

When I have one of these I always seem to do something which somehow breaks sleep paralysis and that wakes me up. But I only remember dreams if I wake up before the dream is finished anyway. Which leads me to wonder: if I have a lucid dream but don't wake up before the end of it would I even know that I've experienced it?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

To all you Lucid dreamers-read and understand the theory before you start making judgements!!

The theory is plausible, is it not? so why not keep it? It is not harming anybody, and to any lucid dreamer expert, this is actually quite logical...

I lucid dream all the time and it sounds just silly to me. ^{d hominem} 14:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think it needs its own article though.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• ADK, it is fairly simple. The only time when we are actively using our subconscious is during a dream, is it not? So when you realise you are dreaming, you bring in your conscious thought (eg. memories of the physical world), so effectively, the conscious and subconscious combine. This is the only time when this happens. So why can we not harness the power of this? And will all due respect ADK, just because you do not like it, it does not mean that it should be taken down...but let's not argue about this mate, I only want my slot :) Swe41 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• To Bob, do you really mean that? How could I do that? And why was my theory taken down??!!??

cheers mate Swe41 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you may have misunderstood me. A large number of our articles are concerned with debunking implausible pseudoscientific guff - so your Erraou would fit right in. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Only if it's notable. If it's just one guy trying to push his own theory on several different websites, it's hardly worth a mention. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, we had that debate a short while back and we decided that "missionality" was more important than notability. And something so obviously non-notable hardly raises anybody's interest. On the other hand, if he keeps pushing it, then an article here saying it's bunk would make a useful reference point for other sites he dumps it on.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that was "decided" very thoroughly. If notability was a complete non-issue then we could all write essays about what our neighbours or coworkers or teachers believe and as long as related to the missions it would be OK. Do we really want that? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the debate was Forum:Notability?, we also say about ourselves: (we have an) almost complete lack of notability requirements (so we can) write articles about any form of crank idea - the equivalent criterion at RW is "missionality". But I'm game for going back to the debate page. I'm relaxed either way. I think it should go to CS.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Before we debate about notability, does anyone understand this "theory"? If so, can someone explain it to me? The conscious and subconscious join forces when you realize you're dreaming...and do what, fight crime together? Maybe it's that damned education in psychology I got -- I've been indoctrinated into the scientific status quo and I can't see the brilliance of this new theory? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't. It's obvious crap. But a lot of pseudoscience is like that.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"when you realise you are dreaming . . . the conscious and subconscious combine. This is the only time when this happens." What complete crap. Try reading some basic psychology. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you think the sub conscious is? What is conscious thought? Most ideas today focus on concepts such as working memory, attention and the pre-frontal cortex forming the construct of "conscious thought." The conscious experience are those things we are processing at the moment that require complex model building or attentional focus. The rest of the brain is still doing a lot. And our "non-conscious" processing is active at all times, used in decision making and learning, and has a direct effect on what winds up in the "conscious" processing. How does any of this fit into your idea? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Kinda hard to debunk...it's mostly not even wrong word salad. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Kekule et al

Where do the dreams of Kekule and others fit into this - 'thinking on a subject' and the subconscious comes up with an answer. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)