Talk:Lucid Dreaming/Induction Techniques

recommend further research
(posted by Daniel Love of Lucidity Institute forum fame):

Many of the techniques and "facts" presented on this page are NOT backed up by research. I would recommend further research into any of the techniques suggested here. This is not to say that SOME of the techniques are genuine only that some are not. Do not take anything you read as a fact without further research. No point filling your mind with misleading details when it is expanding yourmind that you are interested in now is there?

Please would the person who complained about innaccuracies in the "Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques" page detail these inaccuracies? I will make the changes if I cannot back myself up. Alternatively, you can edit the page itself, but note that if I can back myself up the relevant edits will be reverted (i.e. reversed). r3m0t (cont) (talk) 13:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The person was Daniel Love (he's registered at the Lucidity Institute), I have contacted him and he gave kind permission to put the CAT method into the wikibook! r3m0t (cont) (talk) 13:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * There are in fact several incorrections on the text. Recent changes even emphasized it a bit more, for instance the reality check procedures as described are only necessary for someone with a deep mental problem of disassociation, if the issues becomes so severe as described the person should consult a mental specialist. Reality checks have a place and a function but they do not need to become a mania and I contest any benefit in systematically performing reality check while fully consciously awaken and a risk when in lucid dreaming as they promote awakening.
 * The induction section is also extremely convoluted and mixes a lot of information, from autosuggestion, to self-hypnosis (not the same) completely outside of context. I can auto-suggest having a lucid dream but I can't initiate a lucid dream with autosuggestion, this is more or less the same with self-hypnosis I can promote having lucid dreams but not initiate a lucid dream under hypnosis (if at all achieved it is then an hypnotic experience and it is significantly different than a lucid dream)...
 * I was going to tag the page as having incorrections but since this discussion is already taking place I decided the attention of the editors to these facts... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

start reality checking etc right away
The first sentence of the section is stupid: "You should have your dream recall up to about one dream a night before trying to induce lucid dreams". Why? You can just as well start pracitice the habit of reality checking etc right away, at the same time working on dream recall. This should be changed to something like "You should not expect the lucid dream induction techniques to work until your dream recall is good (and even then you might have to wait for months)".


 * This is such a minor change I'm surprised you didn't do it yourself. I'm not trying to be totalitarian with this wikibook ;-). I'll change it myself, in case you never return. But "and even then you might have to wait for months" sounds passive and rather pessimistic. I'm pessimistic myself but try not to spread it. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 14:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't worry :) I'll return with more criticism as soon as I've got time :) And you shouldn't be pessimistic about practicing taking months. I think it's wonderful! It's such an interesting oppurtunity to practice discipline and will power. --DanielJanzon 18:28, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It takes a couple of weeks to get the habit of making reality tests and understand the other lucid dream induction techniques. It also takes a couple of weeks to enhance dream recall. Why not prepare the induction skill so it is there when the dream recall rate is high enough?


 * It didn't take me so long to start doing reality checks (I believe that's the more common name nowadays). Dream recall certainly is a slow thing. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 14:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Doing reality checks unconsciosly, as a habit, takes a while for the nervous system to learn. Well well, maybe that's only true for me? --DanielJanzon 18:28, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps my life is just wierd enough for me to do reality checks a lot and not by habit? ;-) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 18:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tibetan dream yogic methods
Nothing is written about the Tibetan dream yogic methods. Although not scientific, they should be mentioned for those who want to try it out. The technique is basically to understand that everything we see, here, smell and sense is produced by our brains. Everything is a dream. Keeping this high level of awareness during the day-time will eventually make it possible to keep this awareness if not 24 hours a day, at least under large portions of the sleep-time.


 * Criticism isn't so useful when you could do something about it. But I can see you already gave me a starter to find the other name for this: Lucid Living. I'll research it. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 14:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I have time to contribute what I know about it. --DanielJanzon 18:28, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That would be cool. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 18:39, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You know, that sounds a lot like the "mind model" stated in Pedro's VILD text, available in the Appendixes section. KirbyMeister 00:40, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it ain't so hard to come up with, if you're a philosophical sort of person. :) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 08:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Template for RC pages


With the (name) reality check, you check if ...

As well as doing this regularly, you could also do it every time... (optional)

This reality check works because... (optional)

Examples of this reality check working:


 * A simple example (optional)


 * An example where somebody had trouble understanding their results, but managed anyway (optional)


 * An example where somebody did not intend to do the RC when they became lucid (optional)


 * Another miscellanous one (optional)

Examples of this reality check failing:


 * One where the reality check gives real-life results


 * Another one where you try to ask a dream character to "rationalise" the true outcome, or when the reality check worked but was not recognised.


 * Same sort of thing again (optional)

On reality check examples
A quick note on the reality check examples: They don't really need to be real, but they do need to be realistic, i.e. like a dream would be. Also, there isn't much point making them all to a template, is there? Add a little background information, or make the example somehow interesting. Otherwise, leave it out. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 22:21, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Current reliability boxes
Possible boxes for "reliability"; within them will be a description of reliability but not actual content (which would follow).

Response to the colored box idea:

Nice. However, the Rated Yellow category should be a redder yellow while Yellow/Green should be a greener yellow, like this:

KirbyMeister 23:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but... ew! Those colours are pretty bright and lurid. I think I'll just put in the gentle ones now (I want to rush this wikibook to perfection quickly ;) ) and worry about the exact colours later.

Okay. By the way, we could do this on the realitychecks where those with more anecdotes have a higher rating.


 * Tough one there. There are loads more anecdotes than just the ones given (the success ones tend to be all the same) and it's a pain keeping count. Also there's the subject "Reliable - Fast - Discreet" rating on the Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques page, which could make it pretty useless. Well, I'm off to bed now. Don't bother to wish me luck, my dad is pushing me off as I speak. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 00:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions for reliability boxes
My attempts at finding a new colour scheme (showing green/yellow as a different colour :) ) feel free to add more rows with variations. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 21:38, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tharenthel seems to have created a nice-looking scheme... should we keep? KirbyMeister 20:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I say yes (of course :-) ), but I think we should vote... --Tharenthel 21:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Color scheme vote
Add your name by typing to the list after whichever color scheme you like best. If there's a tie between the current colors and another scheme, then the current colors will be kept. If there's a tie between two schemes that aren't the current scheme, then we'll revote with only those two schemes as choices, unless no one voted for anything but those two tied schemes, in which case we'll have to figure out some other way to choose between them. :-) --Tharenthel 21:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vote closes on midnight May 7 Wikibooks time (to pick a date at random). Anonymous votes count. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 09:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vote is over. Tharenthelian Colors won. :-) --Tharenthel 21:10, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Current Colors:
 * Kirby's 1st Attempt:
 * r3m0t's 1st Attempt:
 * A mixture:
 * KC's 1st Attempt:
 * Kirby's 2nd Attempt:
 * Tharenthelian Colors: Tharenthel, r3m0t, KirbyMeister


 * Please could nobody vote for Kirby's second attempt? It's nearly identical to Tharenthel's (Tharenthel's are a tiny bit lighter, actually) and it would be annoying to have a split over such a minor detail. Of course, you can still vote for it if you want, I won't stop you *shrug*.r3m0t (cont) (talk) 22:55, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Uhh, what? Mine=KC's and Thar's seem totally different to me. I picked mine from a web-safe palette, which I think is something to consider. I wonder if everyone is seeing these colors the same way? KC 00:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry; what I thought was that the bottom two looked similar (they are) and the list was the wrong way around, so I said your attempt instead of Kirby's second. I don't think a web-safe palette is something to consider - everybody today, without fail, has 16 bit colours (or 24 bit, or 32 bit...) your one (yes, I'm looking at the right one now) just doesn't seem to "flow" nicely for me (going left-to-right).
 * I will be sure to check these colours on a school computer, just to see how it looks on different screens. I suppose people not using flatscreens would also see it differently, but never mind for now - I have nowhere to test that. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 06:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Dont worry. I didnt vote for mine. KirbyMeister 19:17, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization of the techniques page
I'm thinking we should reorganize the Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques page, rewrite the MILD section, add an autosuggestion section, add a dream incubation section, make a new section for "unverified" techniques (if anyone wants to think of a better name, feel free to share it :-) ) and give each method of inducing WILDs it's own subcategory in the "WILDs" section, so it would look something like this:

'"Unverified" techniques' is where LILD would go along with any other techniques that would be rated red (and possibly ones that would be rated yellow). --Tharenthel 20:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Everything in "Other techniques" at the moment is rated red. That's why not much can be written about them - nobody seems to have tried them out. Have you read VILD? VILD is dream incubation. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think every technique should be color-coded, including everything in "Other techniques"... if everything in that section is rated red, then I guess everything there could just stay in a list (instead of going in subsections), but I think LILD should be moved there, and a reliability box added to the top of the ("Other techniques") section. I think we need a dream incubation section, and VILD could be a subsection of that or something... VILD's pretty much just a variation of the dream incubation concept - it just uses dream incubation to try to make it obvious to the dreamer that they're dreaming. I've put up a new list above so VILD's a subsection under "Incubating dreams" (though I think VILD might not show up on the table of contents thing, since it would be a sub-subsection), and "Other techniques" is at the bottom (and has no subsections). --Tharenthel 15:51, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

By the way, does everyone agree with me about the organization of the "WILDs" section? It'll have a short introduction to Wake-Initiated Lucid Dreams (as opposed to Dream-Initiated Lucid Dreams) that'll also explain the common usage of "WILD" to refer to any technique that induces a WILD, and the basic idea behind all WILD techniques (let your body fall asleep, but keep your brain awake). Under that will be subsections for each different technique of inducing WILDs (the ones currently in the "WILD" section are counting and focusing-on-hypnagogic-imagery, but there are others). Each separate WILD-inducing technique will have it's own reliability box. --Tharenthel 18:06, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

MILD rewrite
I noticed that the MILD on this wikibook, the MILD on ld4all.com, just about every other MILD, and the MILD in TLI's lucid dreaming FAQ/EWLD all seem to differ, so I figured we should probably switch to EWLD/Stephen LaBerge's version of MILD seeing as Stephen LaBerge created it. :-) (the MILD on ld4all.com is a lot like the "Autosuggestion technique" in EWLD, which I made another subsection for below this)

This is my draft of a rewritten MILD section (current version on the right for comparison):

--Tharenthel 20:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see much difference at all between the two. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


 * See my response below in the "New autosuggestion section" section. Other than that, the main difference is that mine says that you should try to remember that you're dreaming (instead of just repeating a mantra), and mentions that it should still work just as good even if you don't fall asleep repeating the mantra as long as you fall asleep focused on your intention to remember that you're dreaming (although that part could be emphasized a bit more). --Tharenthel 17:33, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


 * After rereading my draft a couple times more objectively, I've decided to make a few minor edits to emphasize the remembering to recognize that you're dreaming part a couple bits more. --Tharenthel 20:31, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * So... does anyone mind if I replace the MILD section? (and add the autosuggestion section, since that's a lot like the current MILD section, and that's where the using-autosuggestion-to-improve-dream-recall thing would be moved to) :-/ --Tharenthel 20:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I say go ahead, your text looks good to me. KC 19:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks, I'll go do that now. Just wanted to make sure not everyone else wanted to keep the current version. :-) --Tharenthel 21:40, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

New autosuggestion section
The "Autosuggestion technique" in EWLD says to relax completely, and then to "suggest to yourself that you are going to have a lucid dream, either later the same night or on some other night in the near future. Avoid putting intentional effort into your suggestion. [...] Instead, attempt to put yourself in the frame of mind of genuinely expecting that you will have a lucid dream tonight or sometime soon. Let yourself think expectantly about the lucid dream you are about to have. Look forward to it, but be willing to let it happen all in good time." I think it might also help to add a mantra as long as you don't put intentional effort into it (with the mantra, it would be like LD4all's adapted MILD (click "Inducing")). We could probably just use a modified version of the current MILD section for the autosuggestion section, but I'm not sure if we should include the mantra or not (autosuggestion doesn't necessarily include a mantra as far as I know). --Tharenthel 20:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't like the site to merely be a "free mini-EWLD" so what we are doing generally (or at least, what I want to do) is taking the intersection of all the common versions of the technique (i.e. finding what is common to many descriptions of the technique) and then explaining varietes "on the side". Autosuggestion does not sound very different from MILD - in fact, I would say both of them are forms of autosuggestion. Feel free to add this straight to the LD Induction Techniques, either as a variation of MILD or as its own section. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that as far as MILD is concerned, we should use the version created by it's creator. For autosuggestion, I think we should describe how to use autosuggestion to realize that you're dreaming, whether it's similar to EWLD's "Autosuggestion technique" or not (though it is, as far as I can tell).
 * So, here's the difference between MILD and autosuggestion: With MILD, you set your intention to remember that you're dreaming, and visualize yourself remembering to recognize that you're dreaming. With autosuggestion, you convince yourself that you're about to have a lucid dream. You expect to realize that you're dreaming, and look forward to the dream you're about to have, but you don't put any effortful intention into getting a lucid dream. There is a pretty major difference between the "effortful intention" of MILD and the "noneffortful suggestion" of autosuggestion. MILD (as described by The Lucidity Institute and EWLD/Stephen LaBerge) doesn't necessarily use a mantra (well it does in TLI's FAQ, but not in EWLD, and a mantra's definately not necessary to remember that you're dreaming (which is the purpose of MILD)), but whether the mantra that's usually included is autosuggestion or not is debatable, I think (you're not really trying to make yourself believe something, just remember something)... Anyway, MILD pretty much has to have something to do with memory, or it wouldn't have "mnemonic" in it's name (I've got you there :-P ). --Tharenthel 17:10, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

LILD secret
I will now reveal the secret of why no anecdotes of LILD have been found (highlight the text in and around the box)


 * It's based on the placebo effect, nothing else!

Thank you, please come again :) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 21:35, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I dissagree with that and if you are smart you will also dissagree.--118.92.58.121 (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

LILD vote
One is lonely, two is company, and three is enough to start voting! Welcome to KC :)

I want to remove LILD on account of its uselessness (see Talk:Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques and Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques). The majority wins, anonymous votes count. Sign your vote with (which shows your username). Thanks. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 00:46, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll leave this vote until midnight 9th April wikibooks time. After that, anybody can remove it (if that won) or add it to Lucid dreaming (if that won). In case of a tie, we keep.

Voting is over. There was a tie, so LILD is kept.


 * Do remove LILD: r3m0t, KirbyMeister, Evilshiznat
 * Do not remove LILD: KC, tapir (ld4all.com), BrainHacker (LD4all)

BrainHacker said: "It may not turn out to be a good technique, but it's still a cool experiment, that's why I vote to keep it"

LILD discussion
Hi, I am tapir from LD4all. (he added LILD r3m0t (cont) (talk))

I´d like to say that IMHO kicking everything out that isn´t proven is the wrong way. You´ll end up with a (quite) correct FAQ, but it will be only useful for beginners. Probably it will be basically the same as EWLD, since besides LaBerge there isn´t a lot of scientific studies on lucid dreaming, which means that you can only use techniques for the WIKI that he tested.

Also I think that the way the WIKI is developing right now is a bit "too organized", since the idea behind WIKIs is rather slow natural grow due to users correcting each other.

What I am trying to say is that any kind of contribution to the WIKI should be kept (if they are on topic ). If they are inaccurate other users will correct them sometime. If they don´t work at all they can perhaps still serve as inspiration for developing other methods. This way the WIKI will also be interesting for advanced lucid dreamers.

The colour system with "useful" and "useless" will ensure that newbies get some orientation and don´t end up confused after reading about thousands of different ways.

just my thoughts, tapir


 * I'm not planning to "kick everything out that isn't proven". LILD has been around for ages, and nobody seems to have reported it as working. There is also little inherent reason that it should work. Why keep a technique which doesn't work? I don't know exactly what EWLD is like, but the only techniques I know which aren't reported to be in it are VILD, the new CAT technique, and these, although I would not consider most of them techniques.
 * "wiki" actually means fast. I understand what you mean about it being "too organised" (although of course I don't think so) so I'll explain all the organisation which appears on this page. The conventions are to make my (and other people's) lives easier, but I don't really mind much if people add stuff which doesn't conform to the style, because somebody else will bring it "in line". The todo list is for my own use at least; I could never remember so many things. I wouldn't want to remove LILD unless there's a majority that says it should be removed, as it's a pretty major change. The colours below are really the only way we could ever agree on it.
 * We don't label things "useless" - if it's useless, why is it there? For all I know, there may be a thousand anecdotes on alt.dreams.lucid of LILD working, but they would be hard to find, because in alt.dreams.lucid LILD means "Letter Induced Lucid Dream". So it's teetering on the phrase "no anecdotes found".
 * I hope I answered you well. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 07:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

tapir:

Well, naming new techniques really is a problem, I don´t like the "flood of *ILDS" myself. Perhaps it would be easier if all the techniques got a more individual name (like "the chaining technique"). Anyway, back on the LILD topic. EWLD is "exploring the world of lucid dreaming" by Stephen LaBerge. Actually I think either in this book or in one from Tholey there is an anecdote about LILD that works, and one of the LD4all users was very close to success (He managed to tell a dream character to meet up with him again. The DC walked up to him the next night and told him that it´s a dream, yet the dreamer just didn´t believe his DC) Anyways, even if that doesn´t count and we assume that noone reports LILD to be working, there are IMHO three reasons to keep it anyway (or any other technique like it, I think this is more general problem than just wether we want to keep LILD or not):


 * 1) There aren´t that many reports of LILD not working either. Perhaps it just hasn´t been tested a lot so far but will prove useful in the future?
 * 2) Uncommon, yet unreliable techniques can inspire new ideas. Perhaps someone can come up with a variation on LILD that works better after he read about it?
 * 3) If LILD is removed, perhaps in some weeks someone else is going to write about it again since he thinks he has got a new idea. If he can read about it here this won´t happen.

Well, these are the reasons not to remove it. But, what are the reasons to remove it? Server space surely isn´t the problem. This leaves "it gets more difficult to find the reliable techniques" as far as I can see. This problem can easily be solved by making two (or more) sections, one for tested and useful techniques and one for those which are either unreliable or rather ideas. tapir


 * I also hate the "flood of -ILDs" but to rename techniques would mean to deviate from the norm and making the book harder to read for people who already know something about these techniques. Some people might ask questions like "What's the difference between conciously entering the dream state and WILD?".
 * I would appreciate it if you tried to find that forum anecdote you mentioned.


 * 1) Have you seen Talk:Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques? There is not much reason for this technique to work.
 * 2) Again, I don't see any possible variations of LILD (OK, maybe other people will)
 * 3) I hadn't thought of that.


 * No, not server space, but if a scientist sees this and realises the basis of the technique (again, see Talk:Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques) they would consider the whole wikibook to be of less value.
 * Perhaps there will be a "scratchboard" sort of section for people to develop ideas. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 15:54, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

tapir:

here is what "Imagine" wrote some time ago:

I've done that before. I asked this little kid with purple hair if she could tell me I was dreaming next time. She said she would. So a couple of nights later, she walked up to me and said "You're dreaming you know."

I don't think I remembered her, so for some reason I said "Yeah, right. Why would I trust a kid with purple hair?" And then she stuck her tongue out at me and ran away. I was SO mad at myself when I woke up. She did come back later though, and I can't exactly remember, it was really blurry, but I did get lucid from her. I guess that would be a LILD. I never knew there was such a thing. (from )

Well, of course Daniel Love is right when he says that techniques shouldn´t be presented as working without being tested, that would discredit whe WIKI. Yet with a short note like "yet untested" or in section for unconfirmed techniques it´s a totally different thing. Mentioning unconfirmed techniques contributes to the WIKIs amount of information if they are labeled as such.

Another thing:

Of course LILD is a placebo, that´s the very nature of the technique. It´s some sort of controlled placebo though. Saying that LILD is a placebo is correct (unless you believe in dream characters being independant beings), but similiar to saying auto-suggestion is a placebo.


 * Autosuggestion is not a placebo - it's a mild and easy form of hypnosis. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 17:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

harder to read

 * I also hate the "flood of -ILDs" but to rename techniques would mean to deviate from the norm and making the book harder to read for people who already know something about these techniques.

I totally and completely disagree. I want to make this book as easy to read as possible for people that don't know anything about lucid dreaming. If the traditional terminology is confusing for newcomers, then ditch it. (Or at least banish it to footnotes and parenthetical remarks -- "...(some people call this the XILD technique)"). http://CommunityWiki.org/PlainTalk . --DavidCary 01:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Drugs section?
Do you think it's appropriate? I am for giving out all info we have, but of course with a due "you probably shouldn't be using these" warning. KC 22:02, 3 May 2004 (UTC) Oh, forgot to add: If we decide to keep the drugs section, I can expand and elaborate on it somewhat.


 * I think we should keep it. If the information exists (and it's related), we should try to get it in the wikibook. :-) --Tharenthel 20:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As said on Votes for deletion, it is preferred to keep recommendations of illegal drugs/hallucination-inducing drugs off the site, as it is partly meant for schools. That said, are there any on the list right now? We will at least need a disclaimer if they stay. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, about half the stuff on the list are illegal/controlled substances, depending on where you live of course. KC 17:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

strange links
I noticed that some of the "top" links are changed to Template:Toplink on some parts of this page, noticibly at the bottom. There is also a Template:LDLinksBegin link close to the bottom. Sorry for not fixing this myself, I took a quick check in the edit and I could see nothing wrong (I'm a first time user)

Great book by the way, I just recalled my dream, something I haven't been able to do (or remembered that I've done) in years! exciting!--Sundby 13:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why that happens, very odd. Congratulations! :) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 19:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hrmm... doesn't look like we're going to get that fixed: sourceforge bug report :-( --Tharenthel 19:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

lucid dreaming -- an illusion?
Someone one http://www.diyplanner.com/node/302 makes the claim that people never really have lucid dreams. They only have perfectly ordinary dreams, with no conscious control. Then later, in the half-awake state while waking up, they re-assemble fragments of the dream in ways that give the illusion of having had a lucid dream.

If even a small minority of psychologists really believe this "lucid dreaming is an illusion" theory, then (under NPOV) I think it's worth mentioning somewhere in this book.

I find it odd that this person seems to be simultaneously claiming "lucid dreams don't really exist. They are unimportant." and also "Ignore those people who claim dreams are unimportant. Dreams are so critically important that you should try to remember every one in a journal".

I vaguely remember a television show trying to scientifically test this theory. As you know, REM sleep stands for "rapid eye movement". The researchers asked the volunteer to look up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down (5 times) and clap as soon as the dream became lucid.

I wish I could remember what the clapping thing was about, and the outcome of the experiment. Do any of you remember that, or have pointers to even better experiments?

LILD Update
I added this section in the discussion because everything else seems to be at least a year old. Anyhow, I added a few paragraphs to LILD. It's my favorite and easiest method of inducing lucid dreaming. It's rather difficult to set up, but you only need to do it once. Not sure why everyone here says it's useless. I use it all the time. Well, I'm a big fan of feedback, so comments are welcome... --Cleo 09:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

hmmm... double post... Actually, I've reread my section and some parts are a little confusing. The main idea I'm trying to convey is that using associative technique while lucid dreaming is key to making it undeniable, next time you're dreaming (normally), to your subconscious that you are in fact dreaming. The thing that you associated while in lucid dreaming only exists in lucid dreams. Therefore, the ideas or thoughts that will come to mind are literally "dreams" and then it should "click". However, even here I cannot quite express this idea clearly. Anyone know how to reword it to make it clearer or convey this key concept? --Cleo 11:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Tattoos and other dedicated objects
One technique that I discovered inadvertently was to constantly check my tattoos (in this case, on my wrists). Apparently they are simple enough that my dream often interprets them as random symbols. I usually find this appropriately odd enough to realize that I am dreaming.

Along those lines, often holding an object during sleep on a very regular basis can cause my dream self to appear with it (or can be summoned by thinking about it, presumably from the fact that my hand is, in reality, clutching it). For those wanting to enter the dreamworld properly armed, a knife works very well in this respect, though one must be careful that it isn't very sharp. The presence of a real object in a dream acts as a very effective anchor, especially in nightmares, where they seem to resist the opposing force. It can be a very good feeling to "win" a nightmare. 128.223.209.123 03:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reality checks: technology
I've noticed that technology does not behave well in dreams, especially "black box" technology, where the inner workings are hidden (as in a watch) or are electronic. This encompasses several of the listed techniques: Light Switch and Time. I think that the complex and/or hidden workings of modern technology are too much for the primitive "physics simulator" used in dreams. I would propose adding either a note or another reality check module. -- Phyzome 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, Time is more similar to Reading - each time you look at the symbols on a digital clock or in piece of text, you see something different. Sourcejedi 17:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My experiences
My method of lucid dreaming has always been by attempting to keep my concious mind active as my body sinks into sleep. If I'm not tired at all, I will usually only end up in a deep state of relaxation, or if TOO tired, will lose my the active state of conciousness and fall deep asleep. But if everything is just right, I will start to feel that threshold of crossing over into sleep on a slightly concious level.. I do a reality check by moving my arms while I am sleeping and aware they are next to me... (my slightly concsious mind can feel the extreme heaviness of them) when I am can freely move my arms (and yet know they are next to me) I sort of "jump" into dreamland. so peculiar of a method, but the only way that it really works for me. When I realize I'm dreaming without inducing it THIS way, I typically forget really quickly and go back into normal dreamworld. Sometimes I can do the spinning thing too while at this point and it will send me into lucidity.. helps keep me from jumping awake too somehow if I feel like I'm about to.

Will R
 * note: I was just reading through the page again and noted the Tibetan method.. This is how I induce lucidity I believe. I can sleep while aware, but no visuals etc. my body is heavy and extremely relaxed. at some point I can suddenly *move* though while I know my body is heavy and sleeping and I jump into lucid dreaming*

RCs: Extremely important?
The section on reality checks seems to present them as though they are absolutely necessary to have lucid dreams. However, people have had lucid dreams long before Stephen LaBerge developed the reality testing technique. Also, WILDs are examples of lucid dreams induced without reality checking. While reality testing is a good way fir people who have never had lucid dreams before to get started, it is not necessary to induce lucid dreaming. I think this section could be improved by making this clear. Exabyte (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible Semantics and Contradiction Errors
(Orthography and Syntax left out on purpose...those need no discussion, you just fix them, right? :)

about the water-drinking-or-not section
I did not get the idea of the sentences, or there is a contradiction to be fixed there: "If you have trouble getting to sleep in the first place, don't drink water for about an hour before you think you'll turn your lights off. In fact, do drink water an hour before, to stop you from getting thirsty later on.". The most confusing part is the "In fact" part, wich one usually interprets as preceding a reason that validates the prior sentence.

Maybe you just wanted to propose two solutions to two different problems. In that case, things could be fixed by changing the second sentence to something like "If you think you will be thirsty later on, drink some water before going to bed.". But that wouldn't solve this weird thought that would come to mind to many: What if i do have trouble getting to sleep, therefore i don't drink water, therefore i will be thirsty, therefore i should drink water :)

Another idea: how about simply naming possible problems, and letting the reader solve them for himself. "Be sure to minimize the possibility of ocurrence of anything that would wake you up, like need to go to the bathroom, thirst, hunger, telephone calls, bad body position, etc" -Francisco.

Mabye it is ment as in "[...] don't drink water an hour before you go to bed. but you should drink something an hour before *that* (i.e. two hours before you go to bed) to prevent you from getting thirsty later (when you aren't supposed to drink anymore)" ... ?

About tinnitus
I'm under the impression that, indeed, everyone has a measure of tinnitus and other stray signals in their hearing. The brain blocks them out in normal life. Changes in the organs (ear infection) or other damage (excess sound pressure) can cause change that the brain can't interpret as permanent, leading to tinnitus or a constant "ringing" in the ears.

One of the things that my doctor stressed is that you should ignore any sound in case new ringing seems to persist and absolutely not learn to listen to it. It will become an actively recognized and audible effect. I would very much caution against trying to find the sounds that the brain is supposed to ignore. This may have unwanted lasting effects. Blades 09:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctors want you to be paranoid with thier statement's like "don't play the choking game" and "cancer's gonna kill you". You should be fine. --118.92.58.121 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

^fucking retarded statement. Blades is right. Tinnitus is not to be trifled with. Strongly advise against this stupid method. 213.107.5.93 (discuss) 11:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My personal experience with Tinnitus: When I am in total silence for some time I begin to hear Tinnitus. The first time this happened was many years ago and I didn't know what it was I was hearing, so I tried to listen to it. It grew extremely loud. Then, I turned on a TV, and as soon as the silence was broken the Tinnitus stopped. Since then I have been able to hear it in total silence, but there do not seem to be any adverse effects on my hearing. Fountain Pen (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to use this method a few times. And a couple days ago I began to hear it without trying to, and now I'm hearing it when I go to sleep, and I can't get rid of it. I very much caution people not to use this method. It's even beginning to invade my time awake, in fact I'm hearing it right now. And there's nothing I can really do about it... :(   (The best I've managed is to try to just accept the fact that I may have Tinnitus for some time now, if not for the rest of my life. I'm still a bit distressed that I even attempted this, but once you accept something as a part of your life, it's not quite as bad.) --75.165.7.88 (discuss) 21:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I use a noise machine to drown out my tinnitus, which seems to be a bit more severe than most other people. Relating to your theories, I wonder if this is preventing it from getting worse by not allowing me to focus on it. -Anon (6/4/2020)

*Mostly* Dead discussion
This whole book's discussion is pretty much dead, but if people have questions about Lucid Dreaming, drop a message at erik212's (me) talk page, or e-mail me at erikmuntean@yahoo.com. -erik212

Never explains how to actually DO it
This page provides a lot of info, but it's a real baggy monster to be honest. It's not brought together very well in a way that explains anything to a newcomer. For instance, if reality checks are the "key" to lucid dreaming, why is that? How are they used? What's the purpose?

How do you actually induce a lucid dream!? --86.5.99.130 01:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it does explain it: One way or another (!) you end up in a moment in a dream where you realise you are dreaming. This could be a failed reality check or you could recognize a scene you've been in (in a dream!) before or some surreal feature like a person of the wrong age etc. That is lucidity. From there, you may or may not succeed in manipulating the dream actively. Blades 09:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Reality checks
I know I'm awake (I don't think I could add this if I weren't :)), and I can look at my nose with one eye closed. --67.177.192.134 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see my nose with one eye closed, right now. Currently *some* of these reality check questions have a "yes" answer if you are dreaming ("When you jump, do you float back down?"), while others have a "yes" answer if you are awake ("Can you see your nose with one eye closed?", "Does a light switch work?"). Would it be better if we re-write those questions so they all have a consistent "yes" answer if you are dreaming? --DavidCary (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Boxes again
24.76.169.85 (talk) 08:48, 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 imporant 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.

What does this mean?
I woke myself up from a lucid dream by slightly opening one eye because I could feel was sleeping on my arms. I then successfully got my arms to a more desirable positon. When I closed my eye I foound that I was in the same dream, I could tell it hadn't been long because my arms were still tingling. What does this mean? --118.92.58.121 (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Drugs section = pointless
I am a frequent drug user, especially psychedelics and dissacociatives, so I know what I am talking about when I say this: None of those drugs produce results similar to a lucid dream, except DMT and Salvia, but that is still very slight. Second, "Ayahuasca" and "DMT" is essentially redundant: Ayahuasca is a mixture of drugs, primarily relying on DMT, not a drug in itself. Also, you list just the drugs themselves, when you could list the chemicals. Further more, these are not induction techniques- they may produce a similar state (actually, like I said earlier, far from it) but they do not actually HELP you lucid dream, in any way, not even close, which is why they should be removed from here. -PoisonedV (talk)


 * I agree with your remarks and your proposal, nevertheless it should be said that dissociative experiences seem to be cumulative, that is the more you experience disassociation the easier it becomes to experience it again, there seems to be a link or effect similar to a memory or learning process. I have no experience in drugs but have researched the subject as well as hypnosis and psychology. The frame of mind and expectations will ultimately be a major point to how any mind-state evolves or is transformed. Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Dead links
Most of the links to LD4all link to archived topics, different URL, not bothered to check all of them. Needs fixing. 84.245.22.113 (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just used Internet Archive to find a catch of many of the broken links, however, there are probably more. :D Glich (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Most Potential for Improvement
From what I've seen so far, the most important thing to improve this book is trying to consolidate all these contradicting statements into something coherent. I just, as some may notice, finished editing parts of it heavily, creating something much more readable, yet I did not make any actual changes to the information content, only its presentation. The way it is currently written, it is excessively clear that there are several authors who disagree widely; it needs to morph into an authoritative guide which shows no preference to either view of these various methods. Make clear what is a potential positive and what is a potential negative, and hopefully understand that people are different and different approaches will work for different people.

199.173.224.32 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC) (aka anonymous poster who you don't know and probably don't care about)

Software icons?
It would be handy to have icons for the software section, to show what OS's they work on. (iOS, Windows, Mac, Android, Linux, etc.) Tjb0607 (discuss • contribs) 07:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)