Talk:Lucid dream/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This Page Has Been Cleaned Up!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please read and follow the Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, and help keep this talk page clean.

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article.

Too much discussion on the same thing happening at different points on the page. Look through before you add another section, people. JakeClouD (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've Archived and Refactored a lot of the talk to keep relevant/ongoing issues easily accessible on this main page. Please do not revert this page, discuss here if you need to. JakeClouD (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleaned up!

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This whole article is a joke.

Look at the to-do list!

My to-do list would look something like this: 1) Clean up the sloppy structure of the article. 2) Remove needless verbosity and make the paragraphs more concise. 3) Remove the borderline pseudo-psychology from the article.

But apparently the people who have been most active on this article have different priorities.

The To-Do list I saw:

Here are some tasks you can do:
* Start looking at your hands throughout the day and you will start seeing them in your dreams. * Then Look up this commercial message on The DreamMask - by Bruce Gelerter

Attilitus (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As it is now, the article's messy and some paragraphs don't fit the heading they're under, like "prolongation" and "dream recall" under "Induction methods". Also, under "Rarity and significance" a model of lucid dreaming is put forward. Shouldn't this go in the "Research and clinical applications"-section? I propose the following structure for the "Induction methods"-section: WILD. There's already a section for this and it needs some more citations. Otherwise I see no problem with leaving it as it is. Reality testing. Actually, the third line is disputable. I've been around lucid dreaming forums a lot and I never really hear anyone say they've had success with it. Besides, it doesn't have a scientific backing as far as I'm aware. I think removal is in order, unless a supporting source can be found. Other that than, the reality check part is okay. The thing is that reality checks are used to confirm suspicions that one is dreaming, so it's not exactly an induction technique on its own. However, I think that it should have its own section. Reality checks are widespread and they are used in a number of techniques; even to maintain lucidity. MILD. This technique, developed by Stephen LaBerge has a major place in learning lucid dreaming. Is the Lucidity Institute considered a credible source? Or Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming, for that matter, which basically has the same source. Other than that, there aren't many induction methods with credible scientific backing as far as I know.

Next, the addition of a "Dream control"-section. I don't know if this is appropriate, but if it belongs anywhere it belongs here. In this section would not only go the techniques used to change the dream, but also to stabilize it (now found under prolongation) and to keep lucidity.

Finally, dream recall. It doesn't fit under the other headings and its a well-researched subject. There's been research on how personality affects DRF, how mood does, how sleep does etc. Perhaps this should not go on the lucid dream page, but on the normal dream page? That way, it could be referenced from the induction methods-section. 77.171.19.61 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Lucidity Institute is considered a self-published source WP:SELFPUB and therefore it is not a reliable source per WP:RS. So is the book you just added as reference for the WILD technique. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does the book qualify as self-published? The chapters from the book are either secondary or a tertiary sources (summaries of research), so it doesn't fall under original research either. The publisher is noted for its scholarly publications. 77.171.19.61 (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It qualifies as self-published because it is not a peer-reviewed publication but rather a publication from an advocate of Lucid dreaming. To be considered a reliable source WP:RS especially for a field such as Lucid dreaming which is not mainstream science, if not fringe, one needs strongly scientific sources. If you have any further doubts you can ask the editors at the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN. Just submit your report inquiring about the status of the book as self-published or not. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of Body Experiences

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OBEs aren't really lucid dreaming

The article relates OBEs too closely to lucid dreaming. They are believed by many to be quite distinct phenomena.

If we are to keep the section however it should certainly be modified. As it is impossible to separate diverging opinions on the issue we should state only what is scientifically verifiable and clearly state what is not. Wolfpax50 (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OBE verify credibility tag

Though it wasn't me that removed the tag, I don't see much value in it. This interdiscipinary hypothesis is clearly capable of being made, and verifiably has been made by a high profile technique author from one of the relevant fields. Can a hypothesis lie? K2709 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Coining Contradiction

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Introduction claims the term was coined by Celia Green, Cultural History claims it was coined by Van Eeden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.21.221 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Latest comment: 13 years ago58 comments22 people in discussion

General Discussion of External Links

Boy, this article almost needs a link policy of it's own.

I don't like the LucidPedia link - because it's a young site; as an authority it's limited ("My name is Tim Post, I've done talks and workshops on lucid dreaming around some universities in The Netherlands and have produced 10 high-quality YouTube movies"), and... wait, it doesn't even back up the assertion it's trying to prove (that LD's are extremely vivid). It just says dreams generally can be as vivid and real as life itself. Right, that's going.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is perhaps we need a couple of examples here or something to show we think is reasonable to cite and what's not. Maybe not everyone would actually read it, but at least we'd have something more article-specific to point at / discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcejedi (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed more links from the External Links section. All links are to be discussed prior to implementation. It is somewhat obvious that there are people trying to advertise their own lucid dreaming websites. There are sites far more prominent than those listings I've removed, that have been discussed and not implemented. When editing the article, in the External Links section, it is clearly stated to discuss the links on this talk page. Removed links:

Lucid dreaming, an external wiki
World of Lucid Dreaming
ABC News Video: How to Guide your Dreams

I am unsure about the last link there, but I am sure that some links have been removed previously since I've visited the page, and these have all been added without discussion. JakeClouD (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A Few Links

There are a few LDing Links we could add to this page.

DreamViews.com (Also Suggested up above)

ld4all.com (A Site like DreamViews.com

blake.x566.com (A Public Dream/Lucid Diary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.71.220 (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what section they would be applicable to. They aren't "The" Lucid Dreaming site. They aren't research sites by recognized authorities on the matter. And some, like DreamViews.com, is loaded with advertising of all sorts and seems equally focused on advertising as they are on non-peer reviewed content. Not saying that they shouldn't be added someplace, but instead saying it eludes me as to where would be an appropriate place (which may mean there is no such place in the article). This isn't the same as writing an article on "John Doe" and linking to his official website or official fan site. None of these sites fits the normal criteria, nor even WP:RS as an alternate basis for inclusion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So, consensus (and explanations for reasonings) are explained above for not including these links. Among the other concerns raised above, none of the contributors seem to list any credentials (scientific, medical or otherwise), their writing is not peer reviewed, their writing is not published in any scientific or medical journal. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

External Link discussion has been ordered according to most recent reply. JakeClouD (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Liquid Dream III

The freeware dream journal Liquid Dream or directly from cnet should be mentioned in the dream recall section. It is now on version 3 and has been around for the last decade, with lots of recent upgrades. It also has a bunch of stuff for lucid dreams and should be the definitive download for anyone interested in the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.53.220 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of different programs such as this. Nonsense to advertise one, albeit currently freeware, which is only indirectly relevant to lucid dreaming. Furthermore, it seems like this is an attempt to advertise "lucid-code.com". JakeClouD (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, then how about only the direct download link from cnet? Also, it is very relevant to lucid dreaming; "a professional application designed to trigger your conscious awareness in the dream-state." There are no other lucid dreaming programs in this league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.210.190 (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The credibility of the program isn't my concern; it is that it doesn't directly relate to lucid dreaming. The article is not an instructional on how to attain lucidity or what to use. The link would be more suited on the DMOZ page, or linked on a lucid dreaming website as a resource. JakeClouD (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

dreamviews.com

I would like to request the site DreamViews [1] to be added to the external links in this article.

The reason for this is that it holds a community stronger than you will find in any other lucid dreaming community. On the forum there is now a new addition, called DreamViews Academy, where people can sign up for classes on lucid dreaming. It isn't even just one course on lucid dreaming in general, there are a wide range of courses, which allows people to learn a specific part of lucid dreaming very well, or take all courses, and learn a lot of it very well. (And this is free of course) This was a good addition to the forum, which makes it stand out.

Even if users don't want to take any of these courses, within the whole site, there is the material to learn both HOW to lucid dream, and WHAT lucid dreaming is. And with the community there, any problems can be solved.

Personally, I found DreamViews to stand out from any other site that I looked on. I understand that other sites may appeal to some people, but honestly, on this article, there needs to be a good range of resources. -(UNSIGNED)

Dreamviews.com? Aside that it is the largest LD dedicated community in the www, there are almost 100 tested and verified tutorials. It is incorrect to say that forums have not been linked and still aren't at Wikipedia, specifically when the content is so completely relative. There is also a maintained and factual site with several static pages with much information detailing lucid dreaming. I'm not sure why we aren't linking to these places of interest? These are not small sub-sites, rather they contribute to the validity of the entire topic. Jake.cloud18 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the tutorials on Dreamviews is that most of them are user generated and tested, there are few scientifically tested techniques. Lucidipedia is a legitimate business offering free multilingual tutorials that are all based on legitimate science (http://www.science.lucidipedia.com). Lucidipedia has a forum but I believe that is not the main focus of this website. Lucidipedia was also featured on Lifehacker (http://lifehacker.com/396694/lucipedia-offers-journals-and-forums-for-lucid-dreaming). Lucidipedia has been called out earlier on the discussion page for being a young website and also for lacking authority since it adresses the viewers in a more personal matter. I believe both of these facts to be false. Lucidipedia has been operating for several years and the science is valid (the website has permission to display the university of twente logo on its frontpage). I realize there has been a lot of discussion on the topic of external links and this may be due to the fact that there are a lot of websites trying to cash in on the esoteric nature of this phenomenom. Lucidipedia is exactly the opposite and may be considered a high quality source of information and education and may very well be what people reading this article want to be looking for next. I strongly urge the editors of this article to reconsider and ponder whether or not this link should be added to this article. If the editors of this article respond to this question I will stop asking. 82.75.215.55 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary:

-Strong community (This provides a lot of help, and makes it enjoyable)

-New "DreamViews Academy" (Very helpful to a lot of people)

-A lot of good learning material

-The article needs a good range of resources, DreamViews would be a good resource to add to the range.

I hope you will consider this request.

Thank you.

Slash112 (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this suggestion. Dream Views is a valuable resource for knowledge about lucid dreaming, something I have experienced first hand. Most of what I know about the topic I have learned from resources at Dream Views or linked to it. I have also taken a course at the new Dream Views Academy, and the scientific validity of the knowledge they pass on is in focus. I also know that there is currently a process of compiling the tutorials and other material into a knowledge base. Dream Views is much more than just an online community. --Khhlevir (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Khhlevir.

I would also just like to repeat one thing from my original post, because this is important. (As I have just read an argument against DreamViews in another discussion post)

This lucid dreaming article requires additional resources. I understand you have included some. But it needs to have a good range of resources, because, (as everyone knows) one person may prefer one type of learning, and another person would prefer another type. I understand that there are a rare few who wouldn't like the way of DreamViews. But please do remember that the vast majority of people would benefit greatly from using DreamViews. Especially since there is a wide range of ways of learning within DreamViews (And that range increased when DreamViews Academy started)

Oh, and also, DreamViews is not just about the forum. When I first went to DreamViews, I used the main site only, not the forum. And I have been told that an update is coming, which will make it a lot better (which is saying something, because it is great the way it is). This update will bring a stronger quality information core, such as a knowledge base. Slash112 (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I too have looked over the internet for a site that could provide tutorials and a large knowledge base regarding Lucid Dreaming that doesn't stray into the mystic or magical. Dream views provides a community that seeks out the truth in lucid dreaming a pursues scientific research done in the field. The Dream Views Academy provides a way to allow members to attend a free online course taught by the sites most active and experienced Lucid members, it encourages and provokes you to learn the proper terminology and techniques and to perform all the actions associated with attaining lucidity in your dreams. I find the community inviting and very knowledgeable. Dream Views most certainly offers a scientific and researched based approach to lucid dreaming but also encourages the user to share their progress with the community as a whole. I too would like to request it be added to the external links section. Memento More (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, one last thing from me, before any replys from the keepers of this article. I know what argument will come from you guys, so I'm going to make this one thing clear. dreamviews.com is NOT a forum. It just HAS a forum in it. Slash112 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, seeing as you guys won't reply, I will assume you have no objection to the link being added. I took the courtesy of adding it for you. If you do have objections, please make your arguments clear, as I would like to hear why a link to DreamViews would not be allowed. Slash112 (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed it per the external link guideline, specifically points 4 and 11, of Links normally to be avoided. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Ollie.

Regarding your post, you say point 4 & 11 of the External Link Guideline are the reason you had to remove the link.

Point 4 - "Links mainly intended to promote a website."

Actually I am merely trying to give people the resources they should have about that topic. In accordance with point 3 of the "What should be linked" guideline, Dream Views contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject which cannot be integrated in the Wiki article due to copyright issues and the huge amount of detail.

To prevent misunderstandings, I do not own the site nor am I related to the site in any way except that I am a normal member there. A member who has learned a lot from Dream Views, both on the home section of the site, and the forum section. I just would like all people who are interested in lucid dreaming to have the same opportunity to benefit from that huge LD-resource.

Point 11 - "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority."

DreamViews is neither a blog nor a personal web page. It is a huge knowledge resource with many information pages and a forum including dozens of LD tutorials and thousands of active LD experts. (Note: The information part of DV is going to be much better soon, there is talk of a big upgrade)

Slash112 (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, if it is not a personal web site, who is the publisher? How many editors and fact checkers does it employ? Who writes the content? - MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have asked an admin just there, and this is what he told me:

The publisher is Dreamviews Inc., a company dedicated to the scientific and community-based research of lucid dreaming.

There are 8 people whose job it is to write, edit and update content, and another 12 people managing the community matters. The most reputable and trustworthy members of the community act as the guild of "fact checkers" (124 people at the moment).

Slash112 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no objections. Good. I'll do the honours. Slash112 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I still object. It is a self published web site and the external link should not be placed on this page. - MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not self published. I already said, it is published by dreamviews, inc. And this is an officially registered company. Slash112 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone may register a corporation, and then use that corporation to self publish a web site. - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Then where can you draw a line between self published, and not self published? Slash112 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The authoring entity(ies) being clearly separate from the publishing entity is a good start. - MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I must protest on behalf of Lucidipedia, I think this whole discussion has gotten out of hand. The case made for Dreamviews would be far more supportive of a Lucidipedia link in this wiki article since Lucidipedia honors the actual scientific basis for the case for lucid dreaming whereas dreamviews is a forum with loads of made up stuff. Personally, I think that the editors of this article should draw the line here and say: no more links. I know this means exclusion of Lucidipedia, but I'd rather see people not be redirected to a website full of bogus than to nothing at all. I would like to urge the editors to very carefullY watch the external links that are being placed here and make sure the quality of the referenced website is within the Wikipedia standards. I hope to have shed some light on the Lucidipedia stance with this argument. 82.75.215.55 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ollie, the author of the content has no connection to the publisher.

And as for you, Lucidipedia person. DreamViews home site is all scientific and proper. As are the tutorials. The forum is just a place for discussion, it is not where people actually learn the stuff. Although they may get a few tips and whatever, but certainly not learn all about Lucid Dreaming.

There is still no reason for DreamViews not to be put up. Unless you want to give me another argument. Slash112 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasoning has been presented, you can disagree, but it is clear there is no consensus for inclusion and so the link should remain out. You'll have to be satisfied with the fact that it can be found through the open directory project which is already linked. - MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in actual fact, I've informed you of all the things which go against your reasoning. Seeing as there is no particular reason against it, it is now your opinion, and your opinion alone which is holding it back. I now ask you to please add the link, as it would be a good addition. And I realise that the link is in the open directory project. But that is a terribly laid out page full of links all over the place —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slash112 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

May I just say. By not adding links such as DreamViews, you are preventing some people from gaining knowledge. And heck, that is exactly what Wikipedia's mission is. I personally value the knowledge I gained from DreamViews a lot. And by not adding the link, all you are doing is taking away that opportunity from people. Just... At least consider it. You would be doing a lot of people a favour. Slash112 (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, again, representing Lucidipedia in this matter: I believe that no links should be added. And if one should decide to put in Dreamviews than they must also put in Lucidipedia. We've all been in this article before but it seemed to attract a lot of spam links thus all the links got removed. Like the editor said before, both links are listed in the open directory project and thus no learning in hindered. Both Dreamviews and Lucidipedia will find other ways of attracting people to their websites. 82.75.215.55 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm coming back to this discussion. The reason for that is that DreamViews now has a knowledge-base/Wiki. This section of DV adds to the kind of thing you guys are looking for. Although DV still holds within it a forum; this new Wiki, in addition to the new CMS system with updated articles for the home pages now makes DV a huge resource for information, much better than it has ever been.

I am now asking you to re-consider your decision on whether or not to add DreamViews to the Extended Links section, seeing as DreamViews now meet all criteria for your standards of what gets linked. Slash112 (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the addition of a wiki affects things. - MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the only valid reasoning you had left was that DV was too forum-focused. And this strikes that right out.

And just generally, the addition of the Wiki and updated CMS articles puts it right up there with the kind of sites you should be looking for.

When it's the biggest site of it's type, you cannot throw it away when more and more Wikipedia-worthy things are happening with it. Slash112 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I still contend that all my reasoning is valid, and that in particular WP:ELNO points 4 and 11 apply. - MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained all that.

4) This obviously isn't for promotional purposes, 'cause DV is already 3rd on Google results for "Lucid Dreaming". As if DV needs this for promotional purposes.

11) I actually don't fully understand this one. Because I can't see any way that DV could be seen as personal/blog. Especially seeing as it's a trademark company, etc. etc. Slash112 (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you should send this case to WP:ELN and ask for their opinion. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks, good idea, Dr. K. I'll do that right away. Slash112 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, they pretty much cleared it up with me. I'll leave you guys at peace. Sorry for wasting your time.

Slash112 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

svabhinava.org

The link below is to translated excerpts from Dr. Christian Bouchet's authoritative and interdisciplinary French state thesis on the Lucid Dream

http://www.svabhinava.org/friends/ChristianBouchet/TOC-English-frame.php

From this English TOC at this link. it's easy to access the entire thesis in French.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sunthar

There is NO authoritative thesis on Lucid Dreaming. Every paper on lucid dreaming is only indicative of the findings of the subjects involved. They are not definitive nor authoritative on the subject, as is evidenced by the numerous studies with varying results.

As a cite for indicating what results he found though, perhaps it's applicable.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 18:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good philosophy thesis about consciousness in sleep, which has been received in 1994 at the Université de Paris-Sorbonne University with the distinction "Très Honorable", which is correct yet not the best distinction (it must correspond to "magna cum laude" in anglo-saxon universities). It's very exhaustive and well documented and can be used as a reliable source for many points concerning lucid dreaming (as long as the personal considerations of the author about consciousness are not used here). It has been used as a source on the french article (which is labeled "Good Article") where it mainly serves for sourcing citations from hard to find books. -- Basilus (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

ld4all.com

I wonder if the link ld4all.com (alternatively to the ld4all forum) is not of interest (since adding new links had to be brought up on this discussion page), it is only a whole forum dedicated to lucid dreaming? --Ediug (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And also lucidipedia.com, another forum and encyclopedia dedicated to lucid dreaming. --Ediug (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have checked the sizes of these forums; the ld4all forum seems to be pretty big (298,053 posts), while lucidipedia seems to be more of an encyclopedia and not that much of a forum. Then there is yet another forum, www.dreamviews.com/community, which is much bigger than the ld4all forum (1,118,279 posts); some sections have over 10,000 threads each. --Ediug (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we should start linking to these forums. We've rehashed this a million times. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 03:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Lucidipedia website features a science page, lessons with videos and is frequently visited by dream scientist Robert Waggoner, I believe this should provide it with enough credability to be added to the wikipage. ~ Flapster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.215.55 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not link forums. Period. End of discussion. — Gwalla | Talk 20:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lucidipedia isn't a forum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.215.55 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

lucidipedia.com

I'd like to recommend putting www.lucidipedia.com as an external link in this article, I believe it was in here a couple of months ago but it was probably removed for a good reason (I've seen one on this page, referring to the site as lucidPedia.com) so I'd like to make a case for it. Lucidipedia was founded by Tim Post but has never been an individual project, multiple students at the University Twente have worked on the website (of which a good amount were psychology students) and put in time and effort to not only create scientifically valid content on the website but also a learning section that takes an abundance of elements from educational science and technology. Lucidipedia has/is (depending on when you read this) in contact with the renowned researchers abroad (such as Robert Waggoner) and in Holland. Lucidipedia was also asked to support the IASD (or the international association for the study of dreams) online symposium, interviewed on national radio stations (in Holland and Belgium) etc. To sum it all up I believe this would be a good addition to this wiki page because of the very strong scientifical structure that supports Lucidipedia and because of it being just a good website.

Now, I hope someone will judge this suggestion and we'll see!

Jakob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.199.3 (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

luciddreaming.com

We have spent many hours working diligently on content for our website called lucidddreaming.com only to discover that the external link has been deleted from this Wikipedia topic. Upon further investigation we have discovered that links need to be validated or will be removed. So we're asking that our link to lucid dreaming content be validated called 'An Online Resource Guide' at http://www.luciddreaming.com/information/lucid-dreaming.php. Let us express to the Wikipedia audience that this landing page is a result of much research and study in the field. The intentions for this link to exist on Wikipedia is not to market nor advance the community aspect of this site, but to give a unique, authoratative outlook on lucid dreaming and its related counterparts.

We believe that the information given within this link directly correlates to lucid dreaming and has the proper relevancy to exist. Moreover, we do not consider our website to be visited by occasional users interested in lucid dreaming by happenstance. As it exists currently, the site brings forth a large awareness and feel we're an accepted, legitimate, leading source of lucid dreaming content. We have kindly supplied a reference link to Wikipedia on luciddreaming.com and in return would ask for our link to remain in external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.232.6 (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your site does not have a reputation among experts as a places to go for information on the subject. Given the recent revelation on the Sleep article talk page it isn't surprising. Please stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote your website. -- SiobhanHansa 16:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You have accused me of being slanderous in the above statement[2] so I would like to clear this up - On the sleep article talk page you made it clear your site had allowed content to be posted that included information taken without attribution from Wikipedia. You made it clear this was not what you had instructed the writer to do for you. My point in saying we can see why your site is not considered a great source for information by experts is not to do with the instructions you gave to your writer but with the fact that such an outcome indicates you do not have good editorial oversight and fact checking in place (or else such a situation would not have happened) and so the quality of your work cannot be relied upon to the extent that should be expected for a reliable external site. -- SiobhanHansa 12:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll be removing all Wikipedia content and attributions to related topics from our site. As a site whose foundation revolves around community, we're dissapointed that 'experts' (specifically SiobhanHansa) and potentially others cannot see the research gained from our community-centric dream portal and not consider it a valid resoure to consider. We value the user expression experience surrounding our blogs and will continue to post links on information sources where we see fit. While we admit a few editorial oversights and fact checking that mirrored Wikipedia, it is sometimes difficult to cross-check the many resources on the internet involving lucid dreaming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawfd (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source - so appeals to our user generated content roots as a good basis for appreciating your own site's reliability are not very persuasive.

There is great difficulty in cross checking information - which is why Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on content require the use of publications that have a good reputation (in the given context) for doing just that. That way we are less likely to end up, for instance, in some circular, urban-legend-endorsing webring where we quote a poorly fact checked article that happens to be repeating our poorly fact checked article.

You mention intending to continue posting links to content you consider relevant - I would just like to point out again that if you mean posting links to your website on Wikipedia this is against our policies and guidelines. -- SiobhanHansa 21:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems like quite a contradiction (A potential relevant, research worthy site that asks for an external link on a site that deems its research and contributors as an unreliable resource), and moreover we're still confused how our site isn't deemed a 'proper' and relevant resource and something that dramatically goes against Wikipedia Guidelines. From our perspective it's the opinion of contributors such as SiobhanHansa (and others), on how the site doesn't offer a supplimental form of research and useful content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawfd (talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

astralsociety.com

Who ever feels they are the authority of lucid dreams, please verify my link (www.astralsociety.com). Astral Society has been around since the early 1990's and is chock full of relative information, discussion, and community(interviews, downloads, history, courses ect...). Thanks you for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeumus (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

lucidology 101 YouTube Playlist

The external link section said to put a link here in the discussion section. I would like to suggest this resource link to the Lucidology 101 youtube playlist on inducing sleep paralysis to have lucid dreams:

"How To Use Waking Sleep Paralysis To Induce Lucid Dreams" at Youtube

Induction Drugs

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'd like to have a discussion about this induction drug business, very little of the drugs are sourced from peer reviewed journals, and there was the other recent addition that was simply a hypothesis , which isn't a useful thing to add at all. For instance, I could come up with a hypothesis that standing on your head and counting to 60 backwards induces Lucid Dreams. We need some serious pruning of this section, I'd like to get some input from people that have more experience editing pharmological related articles though, for what really should be included. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a published hypothesis though, whereas your example would constitute original research. Moreover, since Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, the hypothesis does not have to be "useful" to be included — it doesn't necessarily have to offer practical advice. While there seems to be relatively little research on the pharmacology of lucid dreaming, I think it's a valid subtopic for the article. Of course, given the lack of peer-reviewed studies it may still be too speculative to be considered encyclopedic; input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology would be appreciated. Feezo (Talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still a hypothesis, how is it useful to say, "Someone thinks this may help cause lucid dreams", I just don't see how that's useful information. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 02:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request that Galantamine be added to the list of Lucid Dream Supliments because it acts as an Cholinesterase_inhibitor and increases choline in the brain improving dream recall and vividness--Ethan hines (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)ethan_hines

Dream Signs

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Checking for pain in dreams

Hi. I'm pretty sure this is a pretty accurate dream sign. I do not believe it is bogus. I've done this about a thousand times, both in dreams and in waking life, and I'd say it's about 95-97% accurate. You pinch your arm to check for pain. I understand what you mean in that pain in dreams is real, but I've always found it to either be "different", "obstructed", or even "imagined", especially when pinching one's arm. Also, the chances of actually pinching your arm in real life while pinching it in your dream is very low, since you're probably having sleep paralysis. I find it to be the most accurate and reliable dream sign there is. Also, in a dream, occasionally I can walk through a wall without feeling pain (although usually I can't). I know this sounds like OR, but there are probably good sources that we can use as a citation. This might not nessecarily be true for everyone, but I'm pretty sure it's not a myth. The list should probably be just a bit longer. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi AstroHurricane. I've never dreamed lucidly before (so I'm not so secure on what I'm talking about) but I'm assuming that people would find things feel different inside a lucid dream than one another. Even though you find it easier than others to tell the difference between real-life pain and inside a dream, maybe to others it's not so easy to see a difference. I guess it's logical that the in dream pain would feel slightly different to real-life, but apparently it's not so easy to tell for others. -- — JamesDouch • Talk • 14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's not that simple. I have been having lucid dreams for 28 years. I feel pain in lucid dreams "exactly" the same as I do in waking life. And, I have found that any sensation I try to observe in a lucid dream seems just as it does in waking life, whether pain, pleasure, smell, touch or sight. This is the problem with the article. One cannot quantify such things as definites or as yes/no type of things. It will vary among lucid dreamers, just as in any/regular dreamers, things vary (such as some people dream in black and white, while others do not). I've went swimming or fallen into lakes, and that sensation feels exactly like it does in real life. For instance, when falling from a height into a lake or river, it exactly matches experiences from my real life: the sensation of falling, the sensation of pain (assuming I land improperly) of hitting the water at the wrong angle, the "surprise" like feeling in the center of one's chest when in free fall, the feeling of being immersed in cold water, and all the related feelings to being underwater and attempting to regain the surface, that first big inhalation of air, the feeling of being soaked head to toe, the head breaking the surface into the air again, the taste of the water... all real.

Perhaps my sense of senses is more fine tuned than other lucid dreamers because I have been doing it for so long and have gained a decent level of mastery over it. Or perhaps it is because my brain works differently than the brains of those who do not experience sensations in the same fashion.

Here's another "myth" (ie: example that works only with some people). Reading in a dream has various results (again, depends on who you ask): (1) you will wake up if you try to force yourself to read something, (2) you will not be able to read, (3) the text will keep changing or be gibberish, (4) you will have problems focusing on text.

At least one of those is cited in the article. NONE apply to everyone. I used to have problems reading. I found it very difficult to focus on text. That is usually no longer the case. I have even gotten to the point, that with a little effort, I can actually read whole books without any odd affects (text continuously changing) - though that was not the case when I first became able to read. It took a few years to get to the point where none of the above (#1-4) applied to me, but currently for the most part, they do not apply anymore.

Another interesting thing is time dilation. Time in the dream world flows much faster for me, inotherwords, I can dream hours in minutes of waking time. With all senses intact. For almost 3 decades, I have been using the snooze button on my alarm clock to make use of that. In 10 minutes, I've managed to dream as much as half a day. It is a very fluid thing for me though; sometimes in those 5-15 minutes (depending on what my snooze time is set for), I've dreamt as little as an hour - though usually, the dream time hangs on the larger end of that time scale (in the 1/4 day to half a day range). I also find that external stimuli will affect dream time, or be affected by dream time or a combination thereof. For instance, playing music will result in (for me) the music playing in my dream's subconscious background at a VERY slow rate while at the same time, my dream time is decreased a bit as well.

Thus, like many things in the article, none of those things should be stated as all-encompassing fact. They at best only apply to certain people.

That is the major flaw with this article.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 17:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reality Check

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I am also a lucid dreamer and are one of the lucky ones who can do it at will. I have found that another way to check if it is a dream is to pull one of your fingers and if it acts like rubber then obviously it is a dream. Another way is to try and fly (jump) or push your finger through your hand.

I can sometimes wake from my dream and go back to sleep to continue where I left off before waking. Am I the only one? I have a witch friend (Wicca) who says it is something akin to astral projection. Yes, some Christian churches will call it demonic. Marius from South Africa156.8.254.130 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marius! You have interesting experiences. However, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucid dream article, not a forum for general discussion of lucid dreams. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 18:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am recovering from chronic severe sleep apnea which has left me in a situation where I occasionally need to figure out if I am dreaming or not. The topic of methods of determining one's state are very relevant and useful to folks who are in my situation, but it is difficult to find good references to back up anecdotal observations. Would it be possible to include a section on this topic where the citation standards could be expanded to include methods based on personal experience? I don't want to water down the topic, but there may be some patterns we don't see due to an inability for contributors to post empirical evidence for want of formal citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drembody (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Relaxation of the standards of Wikipedia is not negotiable. Please see our policies of original research WP:OR, reliable sources WP:RS and verifiability WP:V all of which contain no exceptions to the rules. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 08:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

SECTION: Rarity and significance

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Rarity section incorrect

In ths section it talks about why people don't relise why they are dreaming because it is so weird but the reason that this happens is that the logical part of the brain shuts down making the dreamer not question the weirdness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.41.4 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusing in Rarity

This addition in Rarity is unclear to me: "This being said, if the brain actually believes something so much, it will actually believe that it is real. If one can make flying seem so real in a dream, then it could very well be possible in real life." What does it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.44.186.129 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

76.235.37.179 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucid dream masks

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

MrOllie, sorry, for the undo, but I was trying to improve on the sources but my editing gets reveted before I have a chance to save.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.44.186.129 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you get your sources together here on the talk page, first. then Dr.K can comment on them, you can arrive at a consensus, and there will be no need for back and forth reverts. - MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr.K, here is the indpendent source for lucid dream masks (Novadreamer) I was tring to add (see what you think): {{cite book - | last =Garfield - | first =Patricia - | title = Creative Dreaming - | publisher =Simon and Schuster - |year=1995 - | location = - | pages = 175-176 - | url =http://books.google.com/books?id=sEXyQkSfzp8C&pg=PA175&dq=novadreamer&cd=4#v=onepage&q=novadreamer&f=false - | doi = - | isbn = 9780684801728 }}

Hi anon. Can you please quote exactly what research Garfield has done to investigate the effectiveness of these devices, what exactly does she write in her book about them and what other independent research has been done to demonstrate the effectiveness of these devices. Thank you. By the way my thanks go to Mr. Ollie for his effort. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Guess you are right; looks like hearsay in her book; still, there are some exciting things taking place in this area, so I may add an entry in 'Further Reading' and you folks can knock it down if you feel it is ill placed; thanks for your time--sorry for the grief.

Thank you anon. It was a pleasure talking to you. No grief involved, especially with such civil interlocutors :) Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Binaural Beats

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Certain forms of binaural beats can be used to assist in the induction of lucid dreaming. Specifically, an iPhone application by Jacob Koter includes this function. 68.231.22.246 (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

It seems to me that this page is currently having a LOT of information deleted from it. I can understand the need to have everything verified, however a subject such as lucid dreaming, in which much of the research and developments are occurring outside of academic institutes, it feels to me that we are doing a disservice to those interested in the subject to remove information simply because it is not peer reviewed or published in an academic journal. The vast majority of research is being undertaken by enthusiasts and the Lucid Dreaming community.

For example, the MILD technique (amongst the others deleted), have strong foundations and has been used effectively by many many lucid dreamers.

I understand the need to keep information valid, but to simply delete entire portions of the current page, on one persons opinion, is in my mind not a healthy way to solve these issues. It would be better to simply retain the tags for the information that needs verifying and wait for the community to add the relevant information.

I do not want to get caught in an edit war, where i have to revert the page to it's original, each time a section is deleted. By I must point out that the current state of the page has contained much of this information for several years now and is the culmination of many peoples work. For one individual to decide that all this time and effort of others is "not good enough".

Yes, I understand the terms of wikipedia, but I also think that on fringe subjects such as Lucid Dreaming, where new discoveries are made by normal people, outside of academia, that we need to have some way to share those discoveries and information.

28.04.10

Hi anon. You make your points eloquently and clearly but unfortunately this is not how Wikipedia works. First, your comment: For one individual to decide that all this time and effort of others is "not good enough" is not really how this process works. I have not decided in a vacuum. This is the article's talkpage. As you see above I announced my intention to clean up the article some time ago. I also invited input from the community. Subsequently I started cleaning up/removing the sections which were the most contentious while at the same time putting forth my reasons on the talkpage and in my edit summaries. This page is watched by 442 registered editors (please see here). I am not making these edits unwatched or in a vacuum. If anyone disagreed they would have said so by now. Also, if you checked above you would notice that the MILD section, among other things, was a copyright violation (WP:COPYVIO). We cannot allow copyright violations and hearsay on Wikipedia under any circumstances. This subject is not fringe. It is a valid research subject and many of its references are valid academically. We cannot, however, allow input from the Lucid dreaming community without verification. Please see our policies of WP:RS and WP:V for more guidance. Also, since you mentioned it, please consult WP:FRINGE. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to reference the deleted methods, so that those interested can at least search online for further information if required? That to me would seem to be in keeping with the ethos of Wikipedia whilst at the same time not completely cutting out a line of enquiry for those who wish to delve deeper? I understand that Wikipedia requires verification, but how do we approach information that does not neatly fit into this system? MILD, WILD, CAT, WBTB and LD supplements. are all common often cited techniques in the communities, could we not reach a compromise and have a sentence or paragraph simply giving a nod of the head to these? (something along the lines of "There are various methods used by lucid dream enthusiasts; MILD, WILD, CAT, WBTB are some of the more often cited methods, however many variations and adaptations of these exist and seem to grow organically from the interaction of the members of online lucid dreaming communities.")

Perhaps?

Just a thought, but seems to me to be the best way to offer a lifeline to those searching for further information, without clogging up the page with detailed descriptions of methods that whilst popular may not have enough academic or verifiable published material to allow them space here on wikipedia?

28.04.10

Your proposal sounds reasonable. We may put these concepts under a section titled "Further reading". This way we don't make any claims about their origins, since any claims in the article must be verified otherwise we delve into original research territory (WP:OR). I'll work on it soon. Thank you for your constructive ideas. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I left the WILD section in the article because it is supported by one seemingly reliable reference from the Dreaming Journal, which is a recognised journal. I added the links for WBTB and MILD in the further reading section. But the LDS (supplements) and CAT (cycle adjustment technique) were not added because their references are very weak to non-existent. One available reference is a US patent application for LDS, which is not sufficient for notability and the other reference is a self-published book, again not reliable enough for inclusion. The CAT technique is only referenced by the name of an unknown researcher whose book is only mentioned in passing with no concrete publication data. So it was left out of the Further reading section as well. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed the self-published reference about LDS is already at the Further reading section. I'll leave it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with deleting is that the article makes no sense - e.g., the later "reality testing" section says "As with text..." for the watch method, yet the text method is no longer listed. Mdwh (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed that issue. If we want a source for MILD, how about http://www.lucidity.com/LucidDreamingFAQ2.html#mild ? Mdwh (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the FAQ section on the website of that organisation is a reliable source. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Matrix / Mescaline

I'm not sure if it's relevant to the article, but I saw The Matrix when I was quite a bit younger, and for years, I thought that "mescaline" was a medical term for what's described here. It is, after all, a very good way to fly, if not the only one. The proper understanding came when I saw another movie: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.70.163.78 (talk • contribs)

Pseudoscience

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Seems like there's quite a bit of pseudoscientific content in this article that is posing as actual scientific research. Things which deal with claims that are difficult or impossible to falsify (the direction of the eyes during REM sleep corresponding to where a dreamer is looking in the dream comes to mind). Given this discussion page, though, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This article needs a lot of work, IMO. RobertM525 (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. There are some sections rife with uncited and unscientific claims. For example the "Out of body experience" section is out of this world in uncited claims. The clean-up task is indeed great. Please go ahead and start it, if you have the time. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that the reference to the eye direction text goes to the trouble of including annotated eye movement trace data, falsifiability doesn't appear to be genuinely problematic. The phrasing could be improved however. K2709 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that many things in this topic simply have not been studied thoroughly enough to gain definitive understandings, and that many of the theories thus simply should not be stated as definites (for instance, this section: "The rate at which time passes while lucid dreaming has been shown to be about the same as while waking." is not applicable to me. I have been a lucid dreamer for about 30 years now, and regularly enjoy long (in dream time) dreams between hitting my snooze button on my alarm. I've got an RCA alarm clock with variable/settable snooze that I currently have set to 5 minutes. In that snooze time, I can dream hours of dream time.

Thus I suspect that anything that is worded as a definitive answer on portions of this subject is probably improperly worded, and should either reworded (above sentence should say "has been observed") or should be linked to a particular study that the result/theory/situation comes from.

On an unrelated note, my dreams exhibit all four "corrolaries" though I dont always choose to use the ability to control the dream environment.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 06:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Visions and lucid and regular dreams are projections of the mind.

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The contents of visions and dreams are not real. The mind projects life forces in many directions. At deeper level mind desires for permanence and security. At superficial level like when one is awake and mind is occupied with daily event, the mind voices are not strong as the night but they are there if you listen to them. The correct question is not asked here. The wrong question gets irrelevant answer. The right question is if you are aware that mind is projecting dream, do you want to continue to wear-out the brain by continue pumping more blood and energy or do you want go to deep sleep? The brain is biological machine it wares out with use and time. There are many wise man and saints claim that they do not need dream. J. Krishnamurti is an example and Yogananda also points out the increase work load of the heart. I see this as very important point but as I recall JK's article on Wiki also does not mention about this. I will need to join discussion there also. Any one see it any different way, a discussion is order before editing this article. Paul Kimm En La Paz 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlapaz.pablo (talk • contribs)

Unconsciousness having more value than awareness is an interesting view, but I see it more as a topic for the ordinary Dream article, unless there's lucidity-specific source material available. It seems to contradict the finding of lucidity being valuable as a nightmare treatment, people achieving Bodhi through Tibetan Dream Yoga, veridical precognitive dreaming etc. K2709 (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're not a trained yogi or sth, you can't choose to go into deep sleep. You go through your sleep cycle every 90 minutes, with the REM sleep phase increasing every cycle. (This may differ for people with sleep disorders, which absolutely don't benefit sleep quality.) Your heartbeat doesn't change significantly, and it doesn't matter whether your lucid or not during REM. In sleep paralysis your body functions are mostly unrelated to perceived dream content, in lucid and «normal» dreams alike. --78.34.220.169 (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dubious neutrality

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The article seems tendentious; in particular, the claim that "Lucid dreaming has been researched scientifically, and its existence is well established" seems very thinly based on just two references. Is there really no research out there disputing its "well established" existence? 72.229.55.38 (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit: lucidipedia has collected a lot of scientific articles about this topic, and also, how do I answer this question correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.56.182.10 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to see on this talk pages comments about lucid dreaming being no scientifically proved, or not recognized by science, or scientific articles by LaBerge being considered as dubious references. A minimum of googling will show that it's well known in sleep research and there have been many studies about lucid dreaming in many universities around the world, for instance:

"this article". by Allan Hobson, Harvard Medical School;
this article by Ursula Voss, Frankfurt University, Germany, which has been relayed the New Scientist.
this article by Daniel Erlacher, Heidelberg University, Germany;
etc. (for instance Antonio Zadra at the The Dream & Nightmare Laboratory of the Sacré-Coeur Hospital at Montreal, Quebec).

Just search for the words lucid dreaming in the International Journal of Dream Research database and you'll find many science articles about lucid dreaming.

In France, lucid dreaming is mentionned in books by Michel Jouvet or by Michel Billiard, who is less known yet is also a reference about sleep and sleep troubles.

Now, the problem is that some pseudo-science or forums claims have been mixed with scientifical information in this article. From what I've read above, it seems that most of them have been cleaned up. -- Basilus (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sleep paralysis can lead to death?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It sais in the article "Experiencing sleep paralysis is a necessary part of WILD, in which dreamers essentially detach their "dream" body from the paralyzed one, this can often lead to very scary experiences and in the most extreme of cases, death."

I read this as "the dreamer is often getting a very scary experience and in the most extreme of cases dies". If it means that in the most extreme of cases the dreamer dies in his dream than that sentence could be more clearly about it. If not then I wasn't able to find any proof regarding sleep paralysis leading to death and that sentence should be altered. 199.48.246.166 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Links

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

109.56.182.10 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you consider adding the scientifically directed lucidipedia.com into external links? Lucidipedia has a total of 12856 registered lucid dreamers. We have posted 22537 forum posts and journaled 37993 dreams in Dream Journal of which 12560 are publicly shared.

Everything except the live-webcam classes are free, including the big pile of tutorials etc..

- Tibiarts (Moderator on Lucidipedia.com)

P.S. You can always check me up on it by going to this link Here

109.56.182.10 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

@sources, out-of-body experiences

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

In a study of fourteen lucid dreamers performed in 1991, people who perform wake-initiated lucid dreams operation (WILD) reported experiences consistent with aspects of out-of-body experiences such as floating above their beds and the feeling of leaving their bodies.[21][unreliable source?]

if there is concern about the accuracy of this information;

i dreamed that i was going to bed, when i jumped into bed, i started "flying like a ghost out of my own body";and then i knew i was in lucid.. short: happened to me.

Divinity76 (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't go with personal experiences. This is called original research. See WP:OR. In addition the sources must be reliable per WP:RS and everything we write has to be verifiable per WP:V. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Since when LaBerge and Levitan are an unreliable source? This is just incredible. I just think someone didn't just understand what was written in this paragraph: it's not because you feel the sensations of leaving your body and floating above your bed in a (lucid) dream (what has been many times observed) that you are really "out-of-your-body". And that's just what LaBerge and Levitan are also saying, and the same thing is reported by the skeptic Susan Blackmore in an article of the Skeptical Inquirer which is reproduced on her website, and also by many others cause these sensations are rather common during WILD's. If you want, here are some more references about these sensations in a lucid dream:

Blackmore, Suzan, “Lucid Dreaming: Awake in Your Sleep?”, Skeptical Inquirer 1991, 15, 362-370
Blackmore, Suzan, “A theory of lucid dreams and OBEs” (In Gackenbach, J. and LaBerge, S., (Eds.), Conscious Mind, Sleeping Brain, p. 373-387, Plenum, New-York, 1988.
The article about OBE on the Skeptic Dictionnary, with references to Blackmore's books and articles.

So I suppress this warning and asking for "better" reference and you can rephrase the paragraph if you find it badly explained, or explain here why it should need for additionnal references. -- Basilus (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Susan Blackmore? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, sorry. I thought I had to correct the link above, then I had other thing to do and I completely forgot it (internal link corrected). -- Basilus (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote 1: Since when LaBerge and Levitan are an unreliable source?: I don't think that the citation you refer to, about the results of a study of a small group of people, is in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Quote 2: I just think someone didn't just understand what was written in this paragraph: it's not because you feel the sensations of leaving your body and floating above your bed in a (lucid) dream (what has been many times observed) that you are really "out-of-your-body".: Please spare us the condescension and come up with peer-reviewed sources and not merely a book, which support these claims, even if they refer to OBEs in a Lucid dream and not in actual life. Being a skeptic does not make Susan Blackmore a reliable source on fringe science claims. And the skeptic dictionary is a self-published source and not a reliable one according to Wikipedia's policies. Also per the extraordinary claims made here, please see WP:REDFLAG. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1) LaBerge is a recognized authority, operating within his area of expertise. Putting "In an INFORMAL study" at the front would frame the information entirely adequately. A rigid RS is unnecessary.

2) Can you explain what claims are supposed to be so extraordinary please? "OBE" is a neutral label for a set of subjective perceptions, it implies nothing objective. How does that differ from WILD? LaBerge himself seems to dismiss it as a subset of lucidity.

I also think that being a prolific author of cited OBE/NDE research papers has some bearing on Blackmore's value. Yes, some are in peer reviewed journals. "Being a skeptic" isn't really an adequate summation. K2709 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The description "Informal study" is original research, WP:OR, except if it is a cited fact from someone who is an expert. OBE may be a subjective experience but claims of people experiencing OBE must be verified scientifically. Otherwise anyone can claim they had an OBE and if their claim is not somehow validated through some type of scientific method it is basically a useless and unverifiable claim. If LaBerge gathers a few people for a study and they tell him they had OBEs, I am not convinced about him reporting it as fact without a team of peers evaluating his research methodology to verify the claims of his research subjects. Of course we can forgo all this if the objective is to create an almanac. But an encyclopaedic article needs better safeguards. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see your OR comment as valid. A concept is clearly being examined, formal protocol is not present, where's the OR in that label?

I also still don't see why, in an article about dreaming, we must be defended from reports of people claiming subjective perceptions during dream studies. You appear to think that someone is trying to pass off ectoplasmic manifestations or teleporting spirits as science here. They're not. A key lucidity author says X out of a group of 14 lucid dreamers unreliably mentioned a couple of themes that tick boxes and it may be worth further attention, that's it. Why the red flag? And better an accurate description of a limited investigation than a blank page. An encyclopedia that tells you nothing is worth nothing. K2709 (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The study is a primary source. We have to be careful when using primary sources per WP:PRIMARY. Evaluating such a study and calling it informal is WP:OR. It is also a case of WP:UNDUE. The study took place in 1991 and since then no other investigation has reliably been published about such phenomenon. In other words it is old and stale news without wider currency in science despite 20 years having passed since the original study. It is also a second-order phenomenon; an already scientifically obscure state (OBE) occuring while in another also scientifically obscure state (WILD). I mean, if that is not the very definition of marginal, then I don't know what is. The other citation in that section is from 1995 and speculates about a research protocol in studies involving OBEs and Lucid dreams. In sixteen years since then, no one has come up with either a protocol or another similar proposal in the field. This also looks like stale news. Maybe we can take the whole section out of its misery per WP:UNDUE? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, as I disagree with the suggestion of it being undue. A quick reality check based on Google hit tests comes up with estimates of 458,000 matches for "lucid dream" OBE, versus 1,590,000 for "lucid dream" alone. Nowhere near reliable, but equally an estimated subject correlation of 28% between LD and OBE needs a very dramatic amount of wrongness before it can safely be dismissed as negligible. The study is not testing a state within a state anyway, just similarity of theme. Plus, research does not have to be voluminous or recent to remain of value. K2709 (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If we consider this subchapter as it is, located in a Research and clinical applications section, presenting LaBerge's experience as if it was the only proof of sensations of floating or leaving his body during lucid dreams, Dr. K.'s request for stronger sources sounds like logical.

Now, I agree with K2709: there is not OR, there is not UNDUE, there is not REDFLAG. There is just a subchapter which is poorly presented and poorly placed into Research and clinical applications where it shouldn't be. Poorly presented cause it gives the feeling that these sensations happened only in one study and we don't have any other report elsewhere or, in the best case, that they are quite rare. But LaBerge experience is not original, such reports can be easily found in litterature about lucid dreaming, and it's even obvious for people who are familiar with the subject. In this unformal experiment, Laberge just wanted to verify statistically if they happened more often during WILDs.

Second, LaBerge is an expert, he is even the main reference in the domain of lucid dreaming. Every searcher who publishes something about lucid dreaming refers to him in their bibliography. For instance, Daniel Erlacher and Michael Schredl, in their study Lucid dreaming frequency and personality, 2004, reviewed and published by Personality and Individual Differences ("[3]". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)[4]), use as a source an article by LaBerge in NightLight. It's not because it's self-published that it's not reliable: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (WP:V).

Third, about the fact that "subjective claims should be validated through some type of scientific method", it disqualifies all the field of psychology, where experiments are mainly based on reports of subjective claims about feeling, emotions, thoughts, sensations, dreams, etc. (and by the way, WILD is not a "scientific obscure state", they are lucid dreams which start from the waking state). I can't agree with that.

But perhaps we are discussing about something which is not such important. I don't criticize at all Dr. K.'s requests for strong verifiability, they have shown very useful in this article which looks like having been demolished by massive addition of unverifiable claims, and good work to suppress them has been done since. The main point is LaBerge's publications (even through NightLight) are considered as serious by other scientists, it should be the same here.

Now, in a first time, I think this paragraph should be moved into the chapter Out-of-body experience, which is about the same subject, which is at first sight dubious thus should require more verifications, and where the Speculation template may even follow, it seems. We'll see later if this chapter is UNDUE or not.

I'll have a deeper look at this article and its history, and I'll come back later to make my comments. -- Basilus (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments about suppressed paragraphs or chapters

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

This article has been so many times vandalized that it's rather difficult to follow its history. From what I've seen, most of what has been reverted has been removed advisedly cause it was personal opinions, theories, experiences, mainly wrong or irrelevant, or forum informations which cannot be sourced in serious books. Anyhow, I'll put here some comments about informations that have disappeared and shouldn't have, in my opinion.

in the lead section, some informations have not been re-established when correcting this "change": [5]. The introductory text "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" (WP:LEAD)... but there is no definition or description chapter in this article ! (it's a lack which should be corrected). So I have to put the info back where it was, with the exception of the vividness "depending on a person's level of self-awareness during the lucid dream", wrong information which is not even supported by the given reference. -- Basilus (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
An information which has been suppressed in the Induction methods chapter, without explanation, a long time ago, is : "lucid dreaming is a conditioned skill". As it is, conditionned seems to be a wrong term but the fact is that "lucid dreaming is a learnable skill", information which can be found in most of the books about lucid dreaming (and is obvious or else there wouldn't be induction methods).
In Cultural history, when replacing “Marquis d'Hervey de Saint-Denys was probably the first person to argue” by “Marquis d'Hervey de Saint-Denys argued”, it's a loss of information. This can be sourced in LaBerge's books and many others. The “probably” is superfluous, cause no previous text about learning lucid dreaming has been found. -- Basilus (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I won't add this back cause I haven't found the sentence I searched in the book I believed it was in. Thus no source. -- Basilus (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've no time now, I'll do other comments later. -- Basilus (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC) The main parts which have been suppressed but shouldn't concern the chapters MILD and WBTB:

About MILD, the chapter concerning this method was rather poorly explained, that's right, and it included two paragraphs which were completly beside the point (they talked about reality checks), certainly the reason why its content was replaced by a text which showed later to be copyvio ([6]) hence was logically reverted. Now, this method is well known and historically important, as shows a quick research on Jayne Gackenbach's website and the past issues of the Lucidity Letter [7], so the chapter should be put back, with the exception of the sentence starting by: "Upon returning to sleep, these individuals will often find themselves back in the same or similar dreams, sometimes even encountering similar dream signs..." which is wrong thus cannot be sourced.
About early waking-up and morning naps (what has been called WBTB by LaBerge), many reports can also be found in litterature (Garfield, Patricia (1975). Psychological determinants of the lucid dream state. Sleep Research, 4, 184, for instance) and the source which was given (an article by LaBerge in NightLight) was perfectly valuable. So this deletion [8] is not really justified. Now, the removed text contained many problems: 1) it's included in the methods yet it isn't truly an induction method; the "practising MILD and focusing on lucid dreaming" are tips or suggestions but they don't participate in the definition of morning naps ("that it is not the particular activity, but the alert wakefulness that facilitates lucid dreaming during subsequent sleep", LaBerge, Phillips & Levitan, An Hour of Wakefulness Before Morning Naps Makes Lucidity More Likely, NightLight 6(3), 1994) ; 3) the explanation "This is because the REM cycles get longer as the night goes on..." explains why there are more lucid dreams at the end of the night yet it is not at all an explanation for the efficiency of a period of wakefulness in the morning which, as far as I know, stays unexplained. Thus, the correct information that should be retrieved will consist in one sentence, which doesn't worth a chapter but may be included in the introduction of the Induction methods chapter. -- Basilus (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is too voluminous to reply in detail, so by necessity I will reply on some serious issues. For example, introducing any other induction techniques such as the MILD technique, based on informal investigations or online letters form the Lucidity Institute, is just introducing marginal and scientifically unverified theories. Further it opens the door for reintroduction of products such as the Lucid dream induction lights or whatever that was sold by the Lucidity Institute online, which is clearly a conflict of interest for that organisation's research goals. Advancing non-peer reviewed theories and selling products based on these theories is not exactly proper scientific method by any standards. So I advise great caution before proceeding. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned about the following sources: http://www.lucidity.com/LucidDreamingFAQ2.html Lucid Dreaming FAQ] LaBerge, S. & Levitan, L. (2004). Version 2.3</ref>. Armstrong-Hickey D. (1998). ''A Validation of Lucid Dreaming in School Age Children'', Lucidity Letter, 7(2), 35-38</ref>. <ref>[[LaBerge, Stephen]], ([[1980]]). Lucid dreaming as a learnable skill: A case study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 1039-1042.</ref>. The FAQ website is not a reliable source and as far as the Lucidity letter and the the others I am not sure what they are but they need further clarification. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Lucidity Letter was published between 1981 and 1991 by the (now-defunct) Lucidity Association, a canadian association devoted into the lucid dream research, under the direction of Jayne Gackenbach, who is teaching psychology at Grant MacEwan University and Athabasca University, Kathy Belicki, professor of psychology at the universities of Waterloo and Toronto, Harry Hunt, professor of psychology at Brock University, etc. Many articles of the Lucidity Letter were written by the most authoritative people in the field of dreams and lucid dreams all around the world, like Paul Tholey, Ann Faraday, Brigitte Holzinger, Carolus M. den Blanken, Celia Green, Christian Bouchet, David Foulkes, John S. Antrobus, Patricia Garfield, Pierre Etevenon, Susan Blackmore, Keith Hearne, William C. Dement and, of course, Stephen LaBerge. Articles may be found on Jayne Gackenbach website but they are also hosted by the Grant MacEwan University library ([9]). As an example, the importance of Jayne Gackenbach and her Lucidity Letter in the field of lucid dreaming are stressed upon in this book Visions of the night: dreams, religion, and psychology by Kelly Bulkeley, Ph.D (where you can also read the importance of Stephen LaBerge).

In general, there is no true reason to mistrust the Lucidity Institute publications neither: the researches that were undertaken here are recognized by the scientific community and commonly used in peer-reviewed articles about lucid dreaming, as I've shown above. As you stress it, the only point that may ask for some caution is about the induction devices, due as you say to a conflict of interest, and I agree. Now, Stephen LaBerge is rather old, his Lucidity Institute is quite dead, no more researches are done there since around ten years, and recent additions on the website are just related to LaBerge's dream yoga courses and books. This surely makes the website look far less credible yet it doesn't alter the fact that the past researches of this scientist are authoritative, still now.

And as for the LaBerge's article, it has been published in Perceptual and Motor Skills, so it's a peer-rewied article. The information which is sourced by this article (learnable skill though hard to master) is well known if not obvious, hence it shouldn't even require any sourcing according to the WP rules. The source has been just added as one example amongst others, since the information had been suppressed cause unsourced.

Now, concerning the Lucidity Institute FAQ, is it OK or not? On the one hand, it mainly summarizes the information which is for the most well known and could be found elsewhere; it has been written by LaBerge and Levitan who are authoritative in the field. On the other hand, this FAQ is sometimes written in a promotional way for books and devices. So it would be far better that references to this FAQ should be replaced by references to books. Until this is done, references to the FAQ are admissible in the meanwhile (unless they refer to something which could be conflict of interest).

So, to answer you briefly: Lucidity Letter and Perceptual and Motor Skills are reliable sources. The Lucidity Institute FAQs are vulgarization for the general public, expressed in a less cautious way than LaBerge's Lucid Dreaming or scientific articles, globally they aren't wrong yet should be taken with some salt. -- Basilus (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed and informative reply. The concern that I still have about these sources is that they seem to be one time shots even in the peer-reviewed literature. In other words I think that it is not enough to publish a peer-reviewed paper once and then claim that you have established a new field in Lucid dream theory, for example: WILD. I see no other researcher having come up with another peer-reviewed study to corroborate and verify the initial study on WILD. In addition no other papers are being published on WILD or other areas. So this research field is stale. To present in this article all these stale research reports which have not addressed the verifiability and reproducibility issues of an experiment is misleading to the reader. And, finally, publishing a book or a new research paper in which one quotes the already stale old paper, does not make the original paper any less stale or the book or the new paper, a valuable new source. It is rather a sign of scientific inbreeding. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please could you read this article about lucid dreaming made by the Dream and Nightmare Laboratory of the Hopital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, affiliated to the Université de Montréal, Canada? It is very well made, encyclopedic and complete and moreover, it's from an independent academic organization. It allows a good outside view about the relative importance of information which is contained in this article (or which isn't yet should). The bibliography will also shows who is considered as authoritative in the field, or whose reports and books about lucid dreaming are considered as interesting though they are not, strictly speaking, part of the scientific literature.

Especially, the chapter Lucid Dreaming Induction Techniques gives the relative importance of induction methods: autosuggestion, MILD, reflexion/intention technique by Paul Tholey (also called critical-reflexive technique), use of external cues (and even posthypnotic suggestions) and techniques for retaining consciousness while falling asleep; those"techniques for retaining consciousness" are those which LaBerge gave the easy-to-remember name WILD; they are at least documented in LaBerge, S. & Rheingold, H. (1990). Exploring the world of lucid dreaming. New York: Ballantine Books and Tholey, P. (1983). Techniques for inducing and manipulating lucid dreams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 79-90.

I think this reading coud make any further discussion easier and greatly facilitate the sorting of information in this article. Thank you in advance. --Basilus (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an unsigned overview of the available literature, sometimes including anecdotal reports of LaBerge's own experiences as a lucid dreamer, not mentioning where he published them for validation, uncritically reiterating LaBerge's non-peer reviewed theories, including his lucid dream induction masks, and other times mentioning online social communities of lucid dreaming where the film Inception is analysed and praised and it contains grammatical errors such as ...suggesting a possible influence of a circadian influence, which indicate possibly bad copy-editing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This webpage was an good example to show what information about lucid dreaming is widely known or not. I was hoping you would understand it, so I am really disappointed by your unflexible denial of any new information. Your systematic requesting that any information presented in this article is peer-reviewed widely overpass what is asked by the WP rules themselves: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." (Wikipedia:Verifiability) ; "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." (Wikipedia:Verifiability). What should be suppressed is unrelevant or unverifiable claims which are unsourced or only sourced from forums or blogs, not what is well known, repeated many times in each book or article about the subject, or written by authoritative scientists, psychology organizations or sleep laboratories. Deleting valid and widely accepted information, suppressing whole sections in a raw just 9 days after having asked for sources [10] [11] or even because the existing sources don't fit his own point of view [12] [13], discouraging any other contributor to modify this article by overinterpreting WP rules in a way thats suits one's own opinion, always asking for hard-to-find peer-reviewed scientific sources when other reliable easier-to-find sources exist or putting a credibility tag after each source added, systematically throwing doubt on every psychologist, neuropsychologist or even peer-reviewed scientific publication which have shown an interest in the subject, I'm sorry but "unfortunately this is not how Wikipedia works", as you said it yourself to someone above. I won't lose my time anymore in uselessly discussing nor modifying this article, I widely prefer that this article is mutilated yet contains few and valid information than bunches of incredible "Erraou theories" or "quartz under the pillow" induction methods. It's the only point I completely agree with you on.

Bye and keep up the good work. -- Basilus (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought that we had settled the controversy about the lucid dream inducing masks, yet you complain in diffs [11] and [12] that I deleted such information. I'm not sure how this works, but anyway. As far as the rest of your points, I do not agree, because if someone is making extraordinary scientific claims, rigorous proof is required. Control of Lucid dreams is something which cannot be claimed casually or anecdotally or speculatively. It needs rigorous experimental evidence and validation by peer-reviewed research, which as we both agree, is lacking. Nevertheless I would propose a compromise so that techniques such as MILD and others be referred with attribution to Laberge, but not as standalone sections, which implies wide recognition and scientific currency. So I propose creating a section on LaBerge where his proposals may be mentioned in relation to his research but not showcased alone as if to imply that they enjoy wide scientific acceptance and currency. What do you think? By the way thank you for your well taken point about the so-called "Erraou theory". I still haven't seen the one about the quartz under the pillow. Sounds interesting. Next, we can bring the UFOs and the aliens. I'm sure they must be experts on Lucid dreaming. It has been reported that alien abductions feel like lucid dreams. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll be more than a bit surprised if you start interesting in abnormal psychology, or read the DSM-IV. The sleep paralysis, a parasomnia, is in its more severe form associated with threatening hallucinations and felt presence of an intruder, which is very well documented by peer-rewieved articles in mainstream publications as you can see in this bibliography, to which you can add some other books or articles, for instance Clancy, S. A. (2005). Abducted: How people come to believe they were kidnapped by aliens. Harvard University Press, or Blackmore S. (1998). Abduction by Aliens or Sleep Paralysis?, Skeptical Inquirer, volume 22.3 or this chapter in Durand V. Mark, Barlow David H., Essentials of Abnormal Psychology, (2005, 4th edition), Wadsworth Publishing. But fortunately this has nothing to do with lucid dreaming, hence we won't have to talk about UFO's and ET's here, which I imagine you'll feel relieved... (And about the quartz under the pillow, you just have forgotten cause you reverted it yourself here). But I've no time now, I'll answer you later, I hope this discussion can start again on a better basis than before. -- Basilus (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Basilus for the interesting information on parasomnias. It is good to know that we won't have to deal with aliens and ETs, interesting as the subject may be, in addition to the other issues which we face here. Had we added aliens in Lucid dreams, I suspect that the difficulties we could have faced would have been out of this world. Thank you also for the diff about the quartz under the pillow, I had completely forgotten. I look forward to discussing this article with you further. Bye for now. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

… and what should have been removed but hasn't been

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

I'm going to list as I go along what are the true issues of this article. They are very different from the points which are believed to be problems (as can be read above). Here are the most obvious, other will follow:

In the Scientific history, there is a whole paragraph about Daniel Oldis but I haven't seen this name mentioned once in the many books and articles about lucid dreaming I've read. He is unknown to other authors, his writings didn't have any influence: his only book (whose title has changed 3 times) has never been cited on Google Scholar or on Google Books. And for good reasons: according to the author himself in the 2006 preface, it's mainly personal theoretical suppositions which have shown completely wrong with time. The author was far from being a specialist of what he was talking about: he is not a psychologist nor a sleep scientist. But in this article, he is taken as a unique reference for a whole paragraph about developmental psychology, in the chapter Rarity and significance. So in my opinion, all this should be suppressed and I'm even wondering if his dubious book may stay in the bibliography.
Paragraph removed in the Scientific history. Unreliable source template added in the Rarity and significance chapter, until I or someone else verify if it's WP:OR or can be sourced by other means. Book left in the bibliography for the moment. -- Basilus (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment on this--I did find citations on this book (not sure why the multiple titles unless new material was added) though I am not sure where in the the article the citations would correlate: In Welcome to the magic theater: A handbook for exploring dreams, pp98-99, by Dick McLeester, 1976/1977; in DREAM SHARING AND SHARED METAPHORS IN A SHORT TERM COMMUNITYby Alexander Randall V, EdD dissertation, Margaret Mead, sponsor, 1978; and in Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self,pp189-191, 2008, by Robert Waggoner. I did not see a Scientific History corroboration here though the McLeester book touches on the Rarity aspect and the Further Reading section may be relevant. I am a big fan of Margaret Mead, though, so I may be biased. I also want to note that I did read the preface referenced and the author did admit that the biochemical aspects he wrote about were most likely in error in retrospect, but this did not seem to be stated in regard to the rest of the book content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.90.31 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the sources you found. The worst thing (for me) is I do have Waggoner's book! but as I'm not particularly interested in paranormal accounts, I didn't remember Oldis was mentioned here… (oops!)

Alexander Randall and Robert Waggoner both focus on the same curious report by Oldis (which is not very convincing by the way as it may look very like a déjà-vu). In my opinion, such points are not very relevant in this article since, whether we admit them or not, they are far from being essential or even significant in the lucid dreaming experience.

As for the the McLeester's book, I don't have it. Can you confirm that McLeester talks about roughly the same content as what is presented at the end of the "Rarity" chapter of this article? I've some troubles with this chapter: the most important is, it's mainly sourced with very old references (circa 1975) when quite nothing was known about neurophysiology of dreams. So the question "Why we are not always lucid in dreams" (which was the title of this section before it was quite improperly renamed "Rarity") is probably better replied with Hobson's or Voss' or other recent explanations based upon EEG/MRI studies, than with older than 1975 psychological speculations.

Anyhow, I still don't see what we could keep about Oldis from these secondary sources. -- Basilus (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, McLeester references Oldis passages that are germane to the last rarity paragraph concerning a developmental approach to the issue (I have the McLeester book and can mail it, if you will blow the dust off it; there are other interesting early lucid dream references, such as James Donahoe’s Dream Reality.) Still, while old, the developmental paragraph may be relevant as an alternative approach to neurophysiology and depth psychology. My own experiences with dream logic and false awakenings do seem to fit this model at times. Your call. If you keep it, I suggest changing the link to the specific section in a full-read edition that may allow the readers to dig deeper: http://books.google.com/books?id=cv-CbDbCng8C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.44.186.129 (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2011

Thanks for the direct link. After reading the passage, here is my opinion: as it is written, the article suggests that this explanation is widely admitted by developmental psychologists, whereas it is only a speculation by Oldis, who has no authority in the area. -- Basilus (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In Perception of time: "However, a 1995 study in Germany indicated that lucid dreams can also have varied time spans… how long the dreams lasted". This elusive and unsourced sentence has been added, long time ago, by an IP... but I don't see at all what experiment it refers to. I have put a "citation required" template but I'm wondering if it's not better to delete.
In Dream recall: "so the principles of state-dependent memory may apply." This sentence was added to replace an incredible pseudo-scientific gibberish about alleged influence of REM atonia on dream recall and a funny "purposely preventing motor neurons from firing" [14]. This was just replacing a stupid so-called "explanation" by a WP:OR thus I'll remove it immediately.
in Reality testing: the "Pinch me" method. In a first time, it had been said a good reality check, which is completely wrong. Hence it has been naturally replaced with the opposite statement, with source added (I'll verify soon if the following explanation is truly in the cited book). Anyhow, if the "pinch me" reality check doesn't work, it's irrelevant (or it just deserves a foot note, certainly not to be placed at the beginning of the chapter).
After verifying, the alleged "explanation" cannot be found neither in the cited book, neither in LaBerge's Lucid Dreaming. The strange feeling which let me skeptical when reading this passage comes from the fact that incorrect deductions have been made from a chapter about body/mind interactions in dreams, to which a brand new "schema for pain in the brain" has been added, etc. It's WP:SYNTH and moreover a bad one. WP:SYNTH suppressed, pinch test moved into a footnote. -- Basilus (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
same chapter: "Holding one's nose and mouth closed while attempting to inhale. If dreaming, one will find themselves breathing and aware." Alas, this method has been invented on a forum in 2002, thus I'm afraid it cannot at all be sourced by books. Accordingly to WP:Verifiability and WP:IRS rules, it should be suppressed.
For the moment, citation needed template added: maybe someone can find something about this recent reality check in a recent guide. -- Basilus (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
same chapter: "A more precise form of reality testing involves examining … would spin for a short period of time." The whole paragraph is self-contradictory: the first sentence says that judging apparent reality of dream objects is a "more precise form of reality testing"; yet the second sentence says that they may not be distinguished from real ones; what the third sentence means is still a mystery to me; the fourth relies on a fictional example in a sci-fi movie. All this is at least irrelevant and should be suppressed.
Paragraph deleted. -- Basilus (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
the chapter "False awakening" contains many irrelevant informations. It starts to be completely non-encyclopaedic (if not totally crazy) from "People who keep a dream journal" to the end or the paragraph.
Sentences deleted. The last one was only repeating what was said just before, with a mention to induction devices vendors which was irrelevant. -- Basilus (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know your opinion. -- Basilus (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you for your taking the time to investigate these details. Please go ahead and remove as necessary. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm beginning the cleaning up and I'll precise in the list above what has been done. -- Basilus (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the update. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There are still some slight problems here and there, but the main one in my view is:

In the chapter Rarity and significance, the last paragraph: "Another theory presented by transpersonal psychology and some Eastern religions […] there must be states of wakefulness that are superior to normal waking awareness." looks like a personal theory of one contributor (WP:OR or WP:SYNTH) and most of what is written here is indeed away from the point. As I'm not familiar with the english WP, I don't know what template is required here. -- Basilus (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No template needed. Please feel free to remove it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood why this paragraph looked like so strange and such out of the point. Its goal was to introduce a personal theory about the dreamer being able, "like the Buddha, to undergo a spiritual awakening" when becoming lucid ([15]). This last sentence has been logically removed, as was other verbose WP:OR of the same contributor ([16]), but the introduction stayed. Significance was added later to the title of the chapter since the content yet was not only related to rarity. Suppressed and replaced the title as it was before. -- Basilus (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I just want to add something to this discussion. I do not know how many of you are lucid dreamers, but (being one for about 3 decades), I can tell you I see nothing really contradictory in a lot of what's brought up above. The OR aspects of that statement aside, it's supported in various of the references that go into far greater detail than the article. Various reality tests and other matter on the subject of lucid dreaming are all determined by the level of lucid dreams and the dreamer. That's touched upon in various of the studies, but I think because of how the stuff is discussed here, it makes it look contradictory. Most reality checks are now useless to me personally - though they were not at one point. Just as the extent the four "corollaries" of Deirdre Barrett apply differently (and probably due to such), much of the information in the article does not apply to all cases or all people. Really, there's no surprise in the seemingly contradictory content. Thus, if anything, it's the wording that's at issue - not the content. Quite simply, nothing in this article should be stated as an absolute, because nothing in it is. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As for me, I've been practicing lucid dreaming since twenty years, I have been a mod on lucid dreaming forums from 2004 to 2010 and I've read many reference books or articles. I would be glad discussing with you on how to improve this article.

In this talk page chapter, the only point I found self-contradictory was about the "judging apparent reality of dreams objets": the history shows that an IP added first (in the reality testing chapter where it was totally out of the point) a paradoxical WP:OR theory which claimed that apparent reality of objects in lucid dreams was giving more credibility to the afterlife [17]. The very same argument being generally used indeed in literature to reach the completely opposite conclusion (i.e. people who think that their soul or astral body is travelling are having a lucid dreaming indeed and are fooled by the realistic features of this kind of dreams), this for the least non-neutral adding was logically followed by an asking for citation; then only the final sentence was eventually removed [18], so that just a bizarre, dubious and quite self-contradictory introduction was left. Finally, someone added to this an improbable example from Inception hence it gave a surrealistic paragraph which had nothing to do here.

Apart from this case, could you be more precise about what you don't see really contradictory and what can be supported by various references? -- Basilus (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Induction methods improvements

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This source is pretty helpful and would also be useful for citing the section to do with how how achieve Lucidity. Jonjonjohny (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
link

It is a self-published source with no academic back-up. See WP:SPS and relevant discussion above. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 08:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)