Talk:Lucid Dreaming

Some messages have been moved.

To Talk:Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques: LILD vote, LILD discussion, reliability boxes

There is a great description of Lucid Dreaming experience in Feynman's Surely You Are Joking, Mr. Feynman. I took the liberty to make the excerpt temporarily available in my userspace at Wikipedia: Wikipedia:en:User:Paranoid/Feynman. Check it out and may be some facts experiences would be interesting to add in this book.

Naming conventions
I have updated all the pages so they are properly named. The book is in a hierarchial structure now. Don't use colons to name pages, use slashes to name pages. Example:

Improper way: "Lucid Dreaming: Introduction"

Proper way: "Lucid Dreaming/Introduction"

Same goes with sub-pages.

Emanla Eraton 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you made rather a hash of this. I've just spent about half an hour making an even nastier mess of it, moving over all the Talk content and correcting the links in the main page and Print_version.

What you should have done is just clicked on the "move" tab and left the "Move associated talk page" checkbox ticked. That way a) the talk pages would have come over too, b) you wouldn't have created pages with 10s of K worth of content and one lonesome edit history entry which names you as completely responsible!

I didn't notice this at first and did some editting on the new pages (before I'd registered this username), including some talk sections. That's why I wasn't able to simply move all the talk sections, and why I wasn't so eager to move your pages out of the way and move the old ones the proper way, because I'd have to reapply all my recent edits.

Hope I don't sound too annoyed.

Sourcejedi 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This book needs to be marked for fixing the pages for naming.

Conventions
A few conventions I'll post here for now:


 * Don't just write MILD, VILD, LILD or WILD. Say "the -ILD technique". The exception is WBTB (don't ask, just do it!)
 * No other acronym is used.
 * Write "reality check" (no capitals)
 * To add links to a forum, use the format as on the current pages.
 * Please post here before creating a new page (with the exception of reality check pages)
 * Don't use the first person.

Thank you! r3m0t (cont) (talk) 00:46, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To do
Stuff to do:

Done:
 * 1) "Food and drink" section will remain a stub for now.. however see below
 * 2) Merged "Grabbing for stuff" and "Looking for stuff" in Lucid Dreaming: Using (Thanks KirbyMeister and KC!)
 * 3) Created "Dissociation" section (Thanks KirbyMeister and KC!)
 * 4) Dream recall improves if you are in the same position in recall and sleep - true? (check with EWLD) -- EWLD says not to move from the position you wake up in since any movement might make dreams harder to remember, but it doesn't say anything about being easier to remember if you move into a position you slept in. Tharenthel 23:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Waiting (it's the jobs which are waiting for me to come over and help them ;-) ):
 * 1) Mess with the content and design of the induction comparison table simultaneously some more *uh oh*
 * 2) You can use MILD to say you can control the length of your LDs... how many people use this? Effective?
 * 3) Update yellow boxes with latest topics *my gawd this is such a pain, I have to get rid of them somehow... useful though*
 * 4) Dream formation/function/interpretation theories (currently in Lucid Dreaming: Dream Recall) *** Surely it needs its own page?  I'd like to make mention of Joe Griffin's Expectation Fulfilment Theory of Dreaming, which has a logical place for LDs.   Yahya Abdal-Aziz (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Placebo effect problems (see bottom of page)
 * 6) Clear up the food, drink & drugs section
 * 7) Make Lucid Dreaming: Glossary worth using
 * 8) Make examples for the rest of the reality check pages (Light switches and Memory).

Feel free to edit this box. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 01:05, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Acronyms
I think we probably should agree on some acronyms to use and what they stand for... here's what I say: --Tharenthel 23:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) DILD - Dream-Initiated Lucid Dream
 * 2) WILD - Wake-Initiated Lucid Dream
 * 3) MILD - Mnemonic Induction of Lucid Dreams or Mnemonically Induced Lucid Dream
 * 4) VILD - Visual Induction of Lucid Dreams or Visually Induced Lucid Dream
 * 5) LILD - Lucid Induction of Lucid Dreams or Lucidly Induced Lucid Dream
 * 6) WBTB - Wake-Back-To-Bed


 * We should not coin any new terms - this is a major barrier between posting on many different sites. I agree with the bottom five (WILD is sometimes taken to mean "Wake Induced Lucid Dream" (although it doesn't make any sense :) )but I'm not so sure about the first one (which is meant to be used to categorise techniques). It will only need to be used in few paragraphs above our excellent techniques table at Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques. Is it really worth "teaching" the reader another acronym just for that small section to read smoothly? I think not.
 * If you were expecting us to choose between, eg, Mnemonic Induction of Lucid Dreams and Mnemonically Induced Lucid Dream, I refrain because often the same forums take the same acronym to meanboth those things (although the first use is more useful and the second use is dying out). This is exactly what the "the -ILD technique" method of writing (I didn't want to write technique of writing) is set out to solve. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 06:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * By "Mnemonic Induction of Lucid Dreams or Mnemonically Induced Lucid Dream" and the others like that, I actually meant that the acronym would stand for both of them depending on it's context. I probably should have said "and" instead, but anyway...
 * This is something like how I picture some of the techniques I know:
 * DILDs:
 * MILD (remembering to recognize that you're dreaming; not quite the same thing as autosuggestion (that is, EWLD says MILD and autosuggestion are two different things, and describes them as separate (and different) techniques, but I think they both include a bit of autosuggestion) (I'll probably put a draft of a rewritten MILD section on the Talk:Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques page sometime))
 * Autosuggestion (the adapted version of MILD described on ld4all.com is a lot like the "Autosuggestion" described in EWLD, especially the part that says it's "important to not *want* it too much")
 * VILD (not completely sure about VILD - you become lucid after the dream starts, but you incubate the dream while awake)
 * Going to sleep thirsty
 * Drinking a lot before sleeping
 * LILD
 * WILDs:
 * Focusing on hypnagogic imagery
 * Counting
 * Most WILD techniques are usually just called WILD like they're one technique, and that makes WILD a few bits ambiguous, which is why I think we should explain WILD and DILD as categorizations and then explain each specific induction technique. If we use WILD (and DILD) like this:
 * WILD - Wake-Initiated Lucid Dream and Wake-Initiation of Lucid Dreams
 * DILD - Dream-Initiated Lucid Dream and Dream-Initiation of Lucid Dreams
 * ...and put a note on the Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques page about common usage of "WILD" to refer to any technique that induces WILDs, then it'll still make sense to someone who reads this wikibook when someone says they "used WILD". --Tharenthel 18:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New section?
I wonder if it is worth giving a section which gives more background on what dreams are. For example, with that background the reasons why turning on a light may not work or flying very high may not work is clear - both require rapid addition of new detail that hasn't been 'in the pipe-line'.

Such a section could also explain the way that characters in a (normal) dream are often different aspects of oneself. There should be some discussion of what the normal function of dreaming is too, even if perforce it has to be stated conjecturally.

So - should a new section be added, if so what should it be called, or is it tooo far off-topic? (anon)


 * I'm not sure about this. I have been considering an appendix section. It would have instructions for making an alarm-clock-based Novadreamer (the site I found it on has copyright-violating material), and full texts from the ld4all.com forum "as the experts wrote them" (stuff like Pedro's mind model text). It could also explain the reality checks, but I don't think that simple things like "the mind has no external input to base the writing on" is enough. Close your eyes now and imagine the words of your choice. See what I mean?
 * If analysing dreams is not offtopic, neither is the new section. I think it could be lumped into the introduction. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 10:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. Why can't you fly very high? I've read of people becoming planets so I can't see any problem of scale...

User:Perl
Good work with this module. I never heard of lucid dreaming before, but I am now very interested in Lucid dreaming. Perl 01:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you fly in dreams does this mean that you are definitely lucid dreaming? Perl 01:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Could you tell me where you got that idea from so I can go fix it? You can dream that you are flying without being lucid (I have flyed once in my normal dreams and about five times in my lucid dreams). Lucid dreaming just means that you are aware, to some extent, that you are dreaming. As you probably know already, we usually accept our reality whether we're in a ridiculous dream or just normal life. Changing that, by using reality checks etc, helps you make lucid dreams where everything is more vivid and you can fly more often :D.


 * If you don't think you had a lucid dream, it's very unlikely you did. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 07:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recall fact or myth?
I recently read this in a lucid dreaming book which is commercially sold:


 * You will have the best recall when you are lying in the same position that you were in when you were dreaming.

As far as I know, there is no scientific research about this, and no way I can see to seperate reality from Placebo effect. So - should the wikibook


 * 1) Not mention this at all (along with most things here) due to its uncertainty?
 * 2) Use weasel terms to mention it?
 * 3) State it as fact, giving readers the advantage of a placebo effect they don't even realise?

At the moment, the wikibook is on the second option. Tough, tough... r3m0t (cont) (talk) 23:34, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I had noticed that I could remember a dream as much as I wanted if I stayed immobile, and that the memories of the dream would fade away quickly if I moved, long before I had read anything about dreams or this article. More precisely, I think it's something about the vertebral column, it's like it felt different when I was immobile, and as soon as I moved the strange feeling would disappear, and the memory of the dream would fade away.


 * I'd vote for the second option for the moment, or put something else to show the lack of scientific research on the subject. I do however have a strong feeling that it is true from my personal experiences. (but, then again, it could be true for some people and false for others)


 * I find it strange though that this has never been studied or confirmed. There has been a lot of research in the domain of sleep and dreams, and this looks like a good clue on how dreams and sleeping work. 201.92.136.117 01:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kaycee
Hi all, I went ahead and added some stuff to the book. Feel free to correct grammar and such (I'm not a native English speaker).

KC 16:36, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Welcome! Can I ask you how often you have lucid dreams generally? I'm already "green with envy". Can I also ask which of these looks better, 1 or 2? r3m0t (cont) (talk) 00:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Really depends on how much effort I put into it. If I don't think about the subject at all, LDs don't happen very often. If I read or write stuff on LDs, I get them once a week maybe. If I keep a dream diary and do reality checks, I'll go up to 3 or 4 times a week. But I'm too lazy for that .p Don't be too envious, spontaneously having LDs can sometimes alienate a person, or cause dissociative symptoms (ie., Did this thing I remember happen in a dream or in reality?). I'll probably write a page on that sometime soon.
 * KC 14:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"top" links
The ld4all.com "resident usability expert" (BrainHacker) has suggested "top" links at the bottom of every subsection. I'll try to perfect this on this page first. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 08:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * All done and very cool. I think I'll leave the top links on this page ;) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 08:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick show of hands - who likes the top links and who feels they get in the way? I'm wondering how good BrainHacker really is ;) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 21:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think there's just too many of them. KC 20:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * On my screen (which uses a normal text size and a resolution of 1280x1024) there are about one per screen, except for long sections like reality checks (I wouldn't want to split them up). Most people have a lower resolution, so they'll have about one every screen, maybe a bit less. Let's not bother adjusting it for now, it isn't very important anyway. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 08:12, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Top links add too much space between sections, but if someone can correct that with CSS, I'd be all right with them. Also, toplinks should be disabled/hidden in the print version. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added class="noprint" to the Toplink template. It is awaiting approval. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

An interesting and related discussion
There is an interesting and related discussion happening here - "What should new LDers be told". I'm happy to keep the debate swinging along there - that's better than a boring old vote. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 22:42, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This page
May I suggest that this page not be used as a repository for general information from the entire Wikibook? It makes this page hard to follow. -- Gabriel Beecham 01:43, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * There is very little to actually say about the Lucid dreaming page and I can't see anywhere else to put this... *gazes around*... stuff. Perhaps there should be an "Authors section" or "scratchpad"? r3m0t (cont) (talk) 06:10, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recent page name changes
I personally don't like the new system on the wikibook with page naming. Some reasons:


 * The preference on Wikipedia not to use colons in titles unless it is really necessary, because it can mess with namespaces
 * Slower to type out (I can use "LD Using" in the search, but I have to write "Lucid Dreaming: Using" in links). Also compare "LD RC Memory" to "Lucid Dreaming: Reality Checks: Memory"
 * "Lucid Dreaming" in the title, but "lucid dreaming" in the text? Seems a bit strange.
 * The mass of redirects which have been left behind.

Can somebody explain why the changes? Until then, I'll be fixing links. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 06:29, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I definitely like the new title style, it's more logical and I think it looks better...
 * We could change the colons to dashes I guess (e.g., "Lucid Dreaming - Reality Checks - Memory"), but I don't think it's really that important. :-/
 * I don't think having to type a bit extra in links is that much of a problem, we only need to do that once for each link anyway.
 * "Lucid Dreaming" would be the title while "lucid dreaming" (or "lucidly dreaming") is used in the text, because the wikibook is "The Lucid Dreaming Wikibook"; it's also "the wikibook on lucid dreaming", but I think the title of the book should be capitalized (though I can see why someone wouldn't).
 * I think the benifits are worth the redirects, and we can always ask an admin to delete them sometime anyway (except for the "Lucid dreaming" and "LD" redirects to "Lucid Dreaming", which we should keep).
 * --Tharenthel 17:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why "Lucid Dreaming: Using" but "Talk:Lucid Dreaming: Using"? Why not "Talk: Lucid Dreaming: Using" or "Talk:Lucid Dreaming:Using"? It's illogical. (hint: the spaces) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 22:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The spaces are a problem, and it might have been better using " - " delimeters instead of ": " (or ":", which I personally think looks ugly), though changing it now will make a lot of redirects. Anyway, "Lucid Dreaming: Appendices: CAT" and "Lucid Dreaming - Appendices - CAT" are both more logical than "LD Appendices CAT" (and it seems to me like a bad idea to use abbreviations too much in chapter titles anyway). --Tharenthel 16:22, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New appendix
Anyone else think we should make a new appendix for exercises that can help with certain induction techniques? For example, there could be a prospective memory training section for getting a better prospective memory (i.e., remembering future intentions) which helps with MILD, or a will strengthening section to strengthen your will. They could go directly in the book, but I think they'd be easier to access with their own appendix. --Tharenthel 15:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Browse buttons?
What about putting somekinda "browse buttons" on the pages? These things would take you through the book in the right order without having to click on the table of contents or anything else. I know it's kinda redundant, but the wikipedia format really isn't the greatest for books. What about "browse talk pages" too? The buttons could be little pictures of arrows or such, to not add any unnecessary text clutter. KC 20:00, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Just looking at the usage statistics shows that these are not necessary. If you look at the front page stat for May - 758 - it is pretty close to all the other sections added up. In other words, the common browsing style is to follow a link from ld4all.com to the front page (I put direct links to pages up occassionally) and then to visit the page you want, read the information you want, and leave. There are probably very few people reading "cover-to-cover".
 * It might be a good idea, though, to add the navigation bar to the bottom. I have to go to school in a bit, so if somebody else were to do it first, that would be handy. (Not the reality check pages, mind!)
 * My problem is, what's with the toplinks? They screwed up. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 06:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unicode characters
So... should we use Unicode characters? I replaced the "--"s with real em dashes (—) and the dashes in ranges (e.g., 45–90) with real en dashes (–) and the straight quotes with curved quotes (“ ”), but I used HTML entities (&amp;mdash;, &amp;ldquo;, etc.) and it makes the code look a bit messy. If we just use the actual Unicode characters in the code, it should look okay, and Wikibooks uses Unicode (unlike the English Wikipedia, which is still using ISO-8859-1 for some reason :- so there shouldn’t be any problems with that. The only problem I can think of is that some unknown number of people might not have Unicode fonts/support (Windows 9x?). :-/ —Tharenthel 19:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Spicing up"
I was thinking about the old dreamviews site: It had beautiful pictures on the side, from the Myst game.

Wouldn't it be cool if the wikibook could be sort of spiced up with colours, pictures, etc? From Myst, or LOOM, or something.

(Note about LOOM: There were a few versions, some with 16 colours, others with 64, others with 256. I'm obviously thinking of the 256-colour version. The screenshots page I linked to has a variety.)

All ideas appreciated. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 17:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I would recommend creating another site and copying this textbook to it. You could then format it however you please. Just remember to display the copyright notice and distribute a copy of the license or a link to it. (Personally, I would wait until the Wikimedia projects have been relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3.0 to do this.) Siddharth Patil (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis
Here's the short synopsis draft. Edit as you like it. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 23:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Reworded the first sentence and added a serial comma (sorry, I had to, my eyes were burning just looking at the serial comma–less version). And I think we should keep the last paragraph in the synopsis that's there now, but replace the rest of it with this one. —Tharenthel 00:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Synopsis-except-last-paragraph is:


 * This book attempts to teach you the skills that can help you to have lucid dreams — dreams in which you know that you are dreaming. Lucid dreams have been scientifically proven to exist. Being aware that you are dreaming, and still remaining asleep, can give you the ability to control your dreams. Lucid dreaming truly can be a fantastic experience. See the introduction for more details on what lucid dreaming is.


 * First, you will find out a little on what dreaming is from the biological aspect. Then, the book will explain how to improve your dream recall so that you remember more of your dreams. Next, it’ll explain how to become lucid during dreams, and how to stay lucid. It’ll also explain how to keep yourself in the dream and prevent it from “fading”. Finally, there will be some suggestions for what you could do within your lucid dreams.


 * Each section in each chapter has some information, and at the end of some sections, more information is given in question-and-answer form. There are also yellow boxes with links to related threads on lucid dreaming forums, with the last topic on the list being the latest.

The extra detail seems useful to me, although maybe the third paragraph ("Each section...") can be removed. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 07:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Were you intending the short synopsis for a sort of cover/splash page that would come before the table of contents page? If you were, I'm definitely against that (unless it gets its own page, like "Lucid Dreaming: Cover" or something), but I think the short synopsis can probably replace most of the one that's there now, or at least the first paragraph (and I think the third paragraph should be removed anyway, though I don't mind the second so much). —Tharenthel 06:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the idea was for the featured wikibook area on the front page. Go look at it. Remove the third paragraph? That makes two people, and over here that's a consensus at the moment. ;) I'll do it. --r3m0t (cont) (talk) 07:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. Didn't even think about that. :-) —Tharenthel 21:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi! If your book really wins the voting (which is at the moment highly likely - but the voting is not over yet!), you could also think about providing an appropriate thumbnail picture (uploaded here or at the commons) for the main page. Maybe the perfect picture is already at the commons, so browse around there. Good luck, --Andreas Ipp 15:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is difficult - lucid dreaming is an abstract thing. There are some nice abstrat pictures here, but they're LD4all forum avatars. Some of these are also good. It's a pity those avatars are so small. The main LD4all site might have larger versions of some of these. pasQuale (site admin) would probably give permission.
 * I thought once maybe images from LOOM could spice up the wikibook a bit. The images are beautiful, the world they show is dreamlike, and they're all wonderfully coloured. The problem is that they are pixellated, they're oddly shaped (if you cut the black part of the screen off), and that if somebody recognises them lucid dreaming would definately not come to mind. The old version of the Dreamviews site used images from Myst, with permission. They were beautiful.
 * Mm, so is this at the commons. However, the book isn't about glaciers.
 * A Google Images search for lucid dreaming turns up nothing.
 * An ideal picture would express some of these things: power (lightning?), freedom (birds in flight?), or general dreaminess. I can't find any nice candidates. I would say my avatar at LD4All but I don't want to make this look like my book, because it isn't anybody's book. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 17:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS How about a dreamcatcher? r3m0t (cont) (talk) 17:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think these are very nice options. I found a picture on commons, that might be suitable: commons:Image:Bluesky2.jpg (searching there for clouds). One could take the upper part of the picture. Looking for clouds at Google one even finds more beautiful pictures, but one should check about their copyright status. Just some suggestions in case... (the voting is still open and the result might still change) --Andreas Ipp 17:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: I guess I more and more like the picture commons:Image:Bluesky2.jpg: Clouds are a symbol for dreaming (especially when combined with a moon at night), but having clouds during daytime means that you are awake - or better aware of your dream... what do you think about that? (the voting is still open and the result might still change) --Andreas Ipp 17:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I want to use Image:Test.JPG but it's licensed under Creative Commons nd (that is, no derivatives). I really don't want to use it if I must keep the plane jet in view, but legally I don't think I can crop it! This came as a surprise - usually when I think of Creative Commons I think of sa (Share Alike). Anyway, I'm cropping it anyway and the person was sent an email. I doubt there will be any legal trouble. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 22:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Misgivings about this book's approach
I have to say that I believe that this project of yours is a dangerous project.

There's an allusion here. Imagine a technical support person who works for sony, can he give advice over the telephone to a person who has bought a Panasonic DVD player?-

Now this person probably could go into that caller's home, and fix the problem - because he knows enough about DVD players to do the job, if he has the item in front of his face, and in his hands...

But what's going to happen if he tries to give advice over the telephone about equipment he isn't familiar with, is that the quizzical person is going to get himself in deeper and deeper problems from the misguided advice of someone who isn't familiar with the specific machine.

Now you say in your introduction in this book that these techniques of getting to a lucid state during a dream, can lead to very serious side affects - including psychotic episodes during the daytime hours.

I'll tell you my appraisal - a person who says he leads a person into blissful experiences, is not being honest, if he also leads that person towards nightmares....

The secret to lucid dreaming is not esoteric mind control techniques. The secret to lucid dreaming, is for the person to understand how his night time thinking processes work, enough to be able to have some agility with them, as he uses them, at night.

Dreams are another form of thinking which is done in the moment. It is a form of topic exploration technique. Just like during the day, a person at night, will think about positive or negative, or neutral topics... and as that person mulls as topic, he will attract images and patterns in his mind which help him understand that topic.

The mind is a pattern assembler. And during a dream at night, the mind is working with several layers of patterns, piecing these ideas together...

Last night, I was dreaming, and I had a very unusual topic in mind. It was "how does a self in a time of the past interfere with the dreaming process to where the dream becomes a nightmare?" and this is why I was inspired to comment on your "book" here.

In my dream last night, there was a character who changed form a lot - his presence even sometimes took the form of simply an inanimate object intentionally placed out of place in the physical environment which the dream described.

But the one thing about this character who was both mysterious and imposing in his presence, was that he wanted to control my thinking process during the dream. It was similar to some mysterious evil manipulative shady character in a hollywood film who hides behind the scenes - where it's not clear to the audience what his relationship to the plot is.

The experience during this nightmare/meditation last night, I can compare to the experience of when a person isn't eating properly - and he feels these odd rushes through his skin and tissues. And he gets scared, because he isn't seeing where his homeostasis issues are in his physiology.

This is not something written after experimenting with your techniques - I would never be as foolish as to follow your blind advice in this book... I simply want to describe my understanding of the difference between a lucid dream and a nightmare..

All of my nightmares, I have seen have been defined by this common issue I describe here. Like any normal human being I have these types of dreams infrequently over the course of my life.

Therefore I would very strongly advise, that the writers of this book not teach people to use a mind control technique on themselves. Rather, I would advise that they teach people how to understand their own mental processes... and how to make wise decisions about doing things in their minds...

By definition "lucid dreaming" means a person is lucid. He is aware of how his thinking processes are working. And this awareness gives him the agility to control his own thinking processes as he would during the day - except in context with a very different form of mental endeavor.

Your warnings in the introduction to this book are all well and good, but consider that the people who died from heart attacks after being given the pharmaceutical VIOXX and other cox2 inhibitors recently are not helped by an apology. The warnings on pharmaceutical labels are not an excuse for giving a substance which is harmful to people.

Your warnings go so far as to say that people may experience psychotic episodes by following your advice.

If you don't have the understanding to offer advice to another human being, or a concrete enough appraisal of your own mental processes to share your thoughts wisely, then please don't say anything at all. Rainbird 11:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply
Before replying, I would like to say first that 1) I am not the author of the "Possible dangers of lucid dreaming" section and know nothing about its content, and 2) the "Dissociation" section only realistically and fully applies to those who already have psychological problems. Hundreds of people on the LD4all forum, Dreamviews.com forum, and alt.dreams.lucid USENET group have reported wonderful lucid dreams (using the techniques described on this site) without any such psychotic episodes. There is an Institute which sells courses in lucid dreaming and once selled devices to aid induction of lucid dreams; they have their own forum with hundreds of further reports on how people have had no ill effects. (To join that forum, one has to have given money to the Institute in some way, or to have participated in a study. Therefore, it could be deemed more reliable.)

You say that "The secret to lucid dreaming is not esoteric mind control techniques." Firstly, almost all the techniques given here are documented in Stephan LaBerge's book, and are not "esoteric", having been used by thousands of people, with mixed results. Secondly, there is no "secret" to lucid dreaming: a) it is no secret and b) I would never want to suggest that the methods here are the only ones, or the only possible ones.

You continue, "The secret to lucid dreaming, is for the person to understand how his night time thinking processes work, enough to be able to have some agility with them, as he uses them, at night." I presume you think that you understand how night-time thinking processes work? Would you share information or references? Because quite frankly, nobody does. The exact purpose of dreams, and how they fulfill that purpose, is also unclear (although most researchers in the field agree it is something to do with learning or memory storage).

Nevertheless, you know the "topic" of one of your dreams: "how does a self in a time of the past interfere with the dreaming process to where the dream becomes a nightmare?" To be honest, I have no idea what you mean by this. Were you wondering how past events involving oneself lead to oneself having nightmares?

"there was a character who changed form a lot" - please clarify. Did you feel in the dream that all those forms were connected, or did you later decide it by dream interpretation?

I don't even understand how the dream relates to the rest of your post.

"I would never be as foolish as to follow your blind advice in this book" - please give details. All of it? Even the section on dream recall? What am I (and the other authors) missing which is making us "blind"? (sarcasm begins) You're very kind about the book, and I'm sure you appreciate the effort I and other authors have put into it, and the fact that all this advice is from well-respected authors and dreaming experts. (sarcasm end)

What is the "common issue" which is a recurring theme in your nightmare?

"Therefore I would very strongly advise, that the writers of this book not teach people to use a mind control technique on themselves. Rather, I would advise that they teach people how to understand their own mental processes... and how to make wise decisions about doing things in their minds..." What are these "mind control techniques" you have seen in this book? Are you giving this advice because you (one very individual person) have had certain nightmares throughout your life (as "Therefore" suggests)? How do you know about your own mental processes?

"...a person is lucid. He is aware of how his thinking processes are working. And this awareness gives him the agility to control his own thinking processes as he would during the day - except in context with a very different form of mental endeavor." No, he is not aware of how his thinking processes are working. He is just in a dream. He can move around, fly, create objects, whatever. He is controlling his thinking processes in a way, but it's a very limited way. If lucid dreaming affected/negated the purpose of dreams, I do not think the mind would allow it, or have evolved to make it possible.

About the last section: Yes, I understand that warnings are not much of a substitute for not actually offering advice. However, I am not the one who put the warning there, and many well-respected sites include LD4all.com, Dreamviews.com and the Lucidity Institute have done without it. I am uncertain why the book even has this warning at all.

"or a concrete enough appraisal of your own mental processes to share your thoughts wisely" - I'm afraid my puny 15-year-old brain is unable to understand what exactly you mean here.

As a final note, thank you for your feedback. I'm always happy to see people speaking up their views. Also, I don't know why you removed the timestamp created by ~, but it certainly should be there (to give your words some authorship (and associated credibility) and to give an indication of how fast the discussion was), so I'm putting it back. A space before the "~" code is also useful for readability.

I suspect you will be interested in my reply, so if you haven't replied in a few days, I will try to send an email to you. Because you didn't provide an email address when you created an account, that will not be possible. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 20:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment on Reply
I wrote most of the "Dangers" section of the book. I feel that the warnings need to be there, since I believe that in dreams you are actually dealing with your own subconscious and personality in a very direct way. This gives you the power to create both blissful and nightmarish experiences that to a certain part of your mind seem "real". Not appreciating that fact may, again from my viewpoint, lead you to recklessly mess up your thought processes in a way that will affet your day-time functioning.

About the other comments, I'm with r3m0t here. KC 17:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Purpose
This is a wonderful piece of work that could be a very useful book if it were oriented more purposefully. As it stands now, however, it seems to be oriented rather frivolously. Life is a reverent and serious pursuit for high and holy purposes, and going about a subject such as Lucid dreaming without a reverence and appreciation for that purpose is a travesty. Would it be possible for you to research some of the ways that Lucid Dreaming can contribute to personal growth and societal betterment and orient more toward that end? Anon Tom

A good example of such an approach is the following passage from a researcher on out of body experiences (possibly closely related to lucid dreaming). Anon Tom 216.160.222.166 18:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Astral projection enables us to use the part of our mind that has been dormant or sleeping. We can wake up this part and put it to work. It is called the subconscious, and it can be used to give us the knowledge we need to find out more about ourselves, our purpose on earth, and our relationship with God. I go to the astral realm and communicate with my teachers."

Would such a paradigm shift be possible? Anon Tom 216.160.222.166 18:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply
I don't see a need for a "paradigm shift". Not everyone shares your view of the world. It's up to each individual themselves what they want to use this information for. KC 22:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Navigation links as header AND footer
Just a usability note: When I am finished reading a page, I need to know where to go next. I would suggest having the LDTOC template at the bottom of the page as well as at the top. Either that, or "previous section" and "next section" links. -- Phyzome 23:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed name change
I propose renaming all the chapters in this book so that they start with "Lucid Dreaming/" rather than "Lucid Dreaming: ". This would make it consistent with wikibooks' naming convention (see WB:NP). I trust this change would not be controversial, but note it here in advance to allow for comments, Jguk 08:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fine with me. —Tharenthel (Talk) (Contribs) 07:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose this structure of chapters : Before to dream Know your dreams Enter into dream Act in your dreams More about lucid dreaming --Anonymous - 13 November 2006

What to do
I moved a large number of "what-to-do" ideas from Wikipedia to here. --Zoz 18:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Translation in french language.
Hello,

I'm very interesting in Lucid dreaming. However, french lucid dreaming community isn't very large.

We need documentation about lucid dreaming but we're not enough in order to redact them.

That's why I ask you if I can translate your book into french.

In waiting your approbation, Nicolas.


 * No reason why not. Wikibooks is absolutely free and its content can be used for any purpose you wish, so long as it's non-commercial. Translation is definitely one of the purposes which we love, since it lets our writings be exposed to a larger audience. Rarr 04:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

History of Lucid Dreaming
This book could use way more material – at least a chapter – on the history of lucid dreaming. The Wikipedia article hardly is adequate. Dilaudid 22:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

PDF file without GFDL license?
Shouldn't the PDF file have the GFDL license printed inside? I took a quick look at some of the other PDF books and they all include the license. - 139.147.24.136 15:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
Great book guys, I've read it through a couple times (hard copy), and not only is it pretty interesting to read, it presents a fairly balanced take on a fairly controvercial topic. Other than the fact that it's not a very long book, I want to make a few points, from the point of view of a critical Wikipedia editor.

Anybody that has though seriously about lucid dreaming will know about LaBerge and his books, and it's obvious that a lot of the verifiable information in this book is supported by his writings. As a somewhat "trusted leader" for everything lucid, it only makes sense. A sceptic who doubts lucid dreaming (a person who may deny it's value, it's meaning, or it's existance) will interperet that fact in the following ways:
 * 1) Lucid dreaming = LaBerge
 * 2) LaBerge is the pretty much the only big name in lucid dreaming; a standout
 * 3) If LaBerge is wrong, lucid dreaming is a joke

Not to mention that all of LaBerge's books are targeted at a rather non-sceptical population (those eager to believe), not the scientific community. If you've read any of his scientific papers (not the best scientific writer, but nothing I can really criticize), you'll notice how deeply his facts are referenced, because he knows he's dealing with a lot of sceptics, and I think that you (we?) should do a little more of the same on Wikibooks. As it is right now, there's all too much sci-fi stuff in the book, and it doesn't serve well as an introduction to a sceptic. More details should be referenced from different trusted individuals (LaBerge himself seems to trust a good dozen of other scientific writers), and you have a responsibility to document the popular criticism as well, or else the whole thing just starts sounding like a sales pamphlet for LaBerge's books.

If you had a Wikibook on "how to fly to the moon", you'd have to make note of the fact that there's a huge percent of the worlds population that doesn't believe it's ever been done, and some who don't think it's possible. I feel that this book should serve as a world-wide, open-perspective introduction to lucid dreaming, and as it has as of yet been written entirely by dreamers and aspiring dreamers, it really seems to present the phenomenon in a much better light than it really deserves.

This is getting a bit long, I'll try to finish up quickly. I have some suggestions, you may or may not think they're necessary.
 * 1) Split the entire book into two parts: What is lucid dreaming + Lucid dreaming methodology
 * 2) Remove all references to the LD4all forums
 * 3) Take a more scientific approach to listing methods, techniques, etc.

Ok so the first one. I'm glad that this isn't just a how-to book (thank you), but if the notes about techs gets any longer it will be at great risk of becoming one (IMO). I personally think that it's much more important to present the theories, experimental results, and arguments that make up the description of lucid dreaming, than to describe how the LD community prepares for bed. Why? Well let me put it this way. If a large number of LDers started reporting that eating yoghurt before sleeping increased the chances of going lucid by a large percent, you could add that to one of your sections on methology, and it would probably be a warrented addition. The problem is that it's not scientific and it doesn't teach you anything useful about lucid dreaming to know that. If yoghurt really was of such great benefit, someone would probably eventually do a real scientific report on it and show that a certain ingredient of yoghurt (or the smell, or a certain texture that triggers a hormone in your brain, etc.) was the culprit, after which that ingredient could be added to the basic lucid dreaming description, because you would have scientific evidence that a certain ingredient has more than a passing influence on the process; it could be part of an essential cycle related to lucid dreaming. Having done that, there's no real need to include it as part of lucid dreaming "methology", because it will have become a core (referenced) element of the description of lucid dreaming itself.

Number two; you'll probably hate me for this. I know why you've done it, and I don't fully disagree with you for doing it, but nobody is going to insist that LD4all is a good, solid source for anything, and as long as we're all responsible Wikipedians here, I think you should just stick to what is known to be reliable, and what we can trust not to fall victim to symptoms of popularity, desparation, over-enthusiasm, etc. It's an excellent resource for starting lucidians, and it definitely deserves a big mention, but I really don't think it should be used as a source for anything. It only takes a couple clicks before you're bombarded by posts about "verified" telekenisis, alien encounters, and all this new-world stuff that may do well with it's own article/book, but is all too controvercial to risk mixing in with a supposedly verifiable book on lucid dreaming. Use your own judgement.

For my third point, I'm mainly looking at the reality checks section. OK, it's useful, informative, and interesting, but from the POV of a non-believing sceptic, it's complete nonsense. I don't really know how I can explain this from a sceptics point of view without just sounding like I'm starting to cause trouble. Basically, I don't think things like these should be made into a chart. This policy exists en force in Wikipedia as well; charts are easily falsifiable, and it is difficult to make them clear, relevant, and perfectly verifiable at the same time. I just feel this chart could be made into a few paragraphs about how certain actions that work perfectly normally IRL, for some reason don't work as well in dreams, and it really begs for an explanation. I understand that light switches don't work so well in dreams, but it sounds like a silly statement to be made in such a bold way, and I'm sure there are sources out there which outline theories as to why such actions such as walking steadily, clapping your hands, breathing through your hose, and looking at mirrors give unexpected results while you are dreaming. It's also difficult to present this topic in a scientific manner, because each time you say something like "can you fly?" the sceptic laughs and passes the whole thing off as a moronic fantasy. It may be useful to use wording more similar to "are you able to intice your dream character to fly" or "does your subconcious tell you that you are flying", which puts some space between the writing and the fact that it's trying to express, i.e. it doesn't  appear in any way that you are claiming anyone is going to be able to "fly".

I think that's enough for now, I really hope someone reads through this and considers improving this book seriously. It really is an interesting book about a fascinating subject, and there definitely needs to be better organization of the hard facts here (as I said before, there's not only one guy writing the scientific papers here!), better educating the public about the phenomenon. Sweet dreams then. 222.158.118.50 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't really "my" book any more, and this is a very late response, but...
 * The first point - about the book taking the POV that LD exists. There are a few reasons why somebody wouldn't believe in LD.
 * They've never experienced it themselves - what am I to do to convince them? :)
 * It doesn't jive with their psycho-stuff about interpreting dreams - what am I to do to convinve them? :)
 * They think that people can't (philosophically speaking) distinguish between an LD and a dream that (in the dream) appears to be an LD. The distinction is important to most LDers because in a false lucid dream, they find that their "chosen activities" in the LD don't really match what they actually wanted to do when they went to sleep.
 * I don't really see the idea of writing a book about how to levitate for people who don't believe in levitation. Similarly for LD.
 * Numbered point one: as long as the non-how-to part remains, it won't become "just a how-to book". Which is good. The balance between sections only reflects how much people are willing to write in each section. Unfortunately, almost nobody does research on LDs, and there is great personal variance between the people who want to have LDs. Also, there is no placebo for eating yoghurt before bedtime (except comparing, say, yoghurt with some fruit) and there's clearly no placebo for reality checks. Everything we have is on a "works-for-somebody" basis.
 * Numbered point two: I was spending time at LD4all, and I liked it - despite the supernatural areas, there are plenty of sceptics, and the LD forums have plenty of people with their feet on the ground, so to speak. (At least when I was there.) Where else am I supposed to link to? Dreamviews? Fine, link to dreamviews. :) The reader is meant to take linked information with a pinch of salt.
 * Numbered point three: 'It's also difficult to present this topic in a scientific manner, because each time you say something like "can you fly?" the sceptic laughs and passes the whole thing off as a moronic fantasy' - it's meant to be the question that somebody asks themselves in the dream. "Can I fly? Yes! I must be in a lucid dream!" as opposed to "Am I able to entice my dream character to fly? What dream character?" (Or worse: "Am I able to entice my dream character to fly? *flaps wings in a crowded train* Apparently not - I guess I must be in real life - hey, why is everybody looking at me funny?"). Of course you'll be "able to fly" - as in feel an experience like you would expect flying to feel like. I don't think anybody would misread it as "lucid dreams can make you able to actually fly in real life". r3m0t &#91;&#91;Special:Contributions/r3m0t&#124;(cont)]] &#91;&#91;User talk:r3m0t&#124;(talk)]] 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead discussion
This whole book's discussion is dead, but if people have questions about Lucid Dreaming, drop a message at erik212's (me) talk page, or e-mail me at egendreau@smes.org. -erik212

A cover?
Would it be useful to make a cover for this book? Emanla Eraton 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If people like to print the book, yes. r3m0t &#91;&#91;Special:Contributions/r3m0t&#124;(cont)]] &#91;&#91;User talk:r3m0t&#124;(talk)]] 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Merges required
Lucid Dreaming: Using and Lucid Dreaming/Using. Lucid Dreaming/Induction Techniques and Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques. Somebody did a copy-and-paste move, except they left the original version behind. Since then, semi-significant changes were made to both pages. Somebody please fix this. r3m0t &#91;&#91;Special:Contributions/r3m0t&#124;(cont)]] &#91;&#91;User talk:r3m0t&#124;(talk)]] 20:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed
I merged the few good changes, since the official articles are edited more than the old one. I also tagged some duplicate articles (glossary, appendix, and links) for deletion, since they are updated in the book.

e-mail me at egendreau@smes.org. Its way faster than my checking here. Also, I backed up the old articles (which are marked for deletion) in case they're needed.

P.S. Sourcejedi, was it you that made all the grammatical corrections in the versions on this book?

9/7/07 Erik212

Fixed for good
✅: I merged the appropriate edit histories. The pages that were tagged with were deleted, then recreated as a redirect to the "real" page in question (which is associated with the complete edit history). Just a reminder that copy and paste movements of content are messy to fix - if you need to move a page, then move the page... with the move tab at the top of the page. If there's a page there already, it will block you from moving to that location; ask an admin to help out if that's the case. It's much easier that way than if we have to come along behind merging edit histories.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 04:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks for the effort.  I'm sorry (if) my "fixup" contributed to the mess; as above I blame User:Ksd5 for the initial copy+paste move :-).  I'll remember to find an admin as soon as I come across such problems in future.  Wikipedia's "be bold" definitely doesn't apply to moving pages :-).

Problems
I think this book should have a section on problems such as losing awareness and/or conciousness in WILD and how to overcome them. --203.118.177.19 06:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucid Dreaming: The Psuedoscientific New Age Nonsense
I ask you all to look at this site: http://www.skepdic.com/lucdream.html. It disproves Lucid Dreaming as more New Age nonsense, it should be piled into Astrology with junk sciences. It is possible you can dream you are awake when you are not. It is scientifically impossible to have conciousness in sub-concious sleep. Thus this is nonsense. So please remove claims this is scientific!!


 * I looked at the site. Is it the second to last paragraph you're making reference to?
 * "Some skeptics do not believe that there is such a state as lucid dreaming (Malcolm 1959). Skeptics don't deny that sometimes in our dreams we dream that we are aware that we are dreaming. What they deny is that there is special dream state called the 'lucid state.' The lucid dream is therefore not a gateway to "transcendent consciousness" any more than nightmares are."
 * The way I interpret this, they're saying that it might not be that we know we're dreaming, but that we dream we know we're dreaming. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure it makes any difference. Either way, it's possible for us to behave exactly as if we know that we're dreaming, whether or not we're just dreaming that we know we're dreaming and we don't actually know we're dreaming (and, really, how does that work? We "think" we know we're dreaming, but we don't actually know we're dreaming?). Two more things: Lucid dreaming is not a science, it's a phenomenon. Neurology is a science, as is psychology. And, I don't know about you, but I'm always conscious during my dreams. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to remember them, would I? If I'm consciously aware of a thought, it's a conscious thought. If a thought is not conscious, I'm not consciously aware of it. I am consciously aware of my dreams (even non-lucid ones) as they're occuring, so, it seems to me, they must be conscious.
 * I understand what he means by "It is possible you can dream you are awake when you are not." I myself have experienced "lucid" dreams which were in fact very restrictive, in which I thought I had full realization of the fact that I was dreaming, but I could hardly control any aspects of my dream as I should have been able to if I were actually fully conscious of this fact. This may support the claim that so called "lucid dreaming" is all an invention of our subconscious, and I believe so, but regardless of this, lucid dreaming is enjoyable when experienced as if truly under the dreamer's control. The possibility that lucid dreaming is an illusion of the subconscious is no reason to dismiss the pursuit of such experiences as nonsense or junk. I identify with the first person's wish to remove whatever semblence of scientific support is present in the wikibook, but at the same time believing in such proof is somewhat necessary to the pursuit of lucid dreaming and if a reader "knows better," good for them. ;) 72.197.183.70 (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the section you added ("Criticism of Lucid Dreaming") because it contains no content except for an unsupported claim ("Lucid dreaming is New Age nonsense masquerading as actual science.") and a link (which, as far as I can tell, doesn't give any support to your claim). I'll add the link to the Further Reading section. If you'd like to add information about particular criticisms of lucid dreaming, then I think the Introduction would be a more appropriate place for it than the front page. Tharenthel (Talk) (Contribs) 04:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'Techniques' page and its various color-classifications seem screwy
(cross posted here) 24.76.169.85 (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is there even a red classification? If you can't even get anecdotal evidence, what do you have exactly?
 * Why does Green place commercial books at the same level as scientific research? I mean, anyone can publish a book about any crackpot nonsense they want. Why should that be as important a criteria as actual science?
 * And as an aside, is there any actual science behind any of this? I don't mean some insane study published in Medical Hypotheses, I mean actual science.


 * I agree that it can sometimes be inconsistent, that needs to be fixed. In the cases of the commercial books, I believe that it is referring to books published by scientists such as Dr. Stephen LaBerge, and other "experts" in the field. I'm not sure how many people write books that are complete BS about LDing, seeing how it's pretty well established what's true about it. Of course there is actual science. There are many links within the book, and I can provide you the link to the lucidity institutes's page, where you can see two of the books LaBerge has published, as well as a FAQ. Erik212 (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan methods
First of all, I'd like to apologize for messing up the wikibook with my botched rename. The Tibetan Method section should be expanded on. It has been at 25% status for some time now. Emanla Eraton (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Things happening because you believe them
I've experienced that what happens in a Lucid Dream are only the things I believe in. For instance, if I try to fly, but I think I'm going to fall, I will actually fall. I think it's an useful thing to know, to let go of your real world beliefs when you're in a Lucid Dream.

I wanted to put this somewhere, but I'm not sure where, and I also don't know whether you think the same. Thanks! Theon144 (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)