Is there any real difference between reality and a dream?

[DaveC426913]

There are different levels of conscious here. Conscious as in self aware. Or conscious as in being able to perceive. My cat is conscious in the sense that he can perceive. But he is not self aware. So I say all dreams are conscious because were are perceving things, and then remembering these perceptions.

Have you ever had a dream where you knew you were dreaming?

Conscious#

1. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See synonyms at aware.
2. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.

# Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious

None of this demonstrates that a dream is a conscious state as opposed to an unconscious state (which is the crux of our disagreement). You have to also demonstrate that the unconscious state does not include any of the elements found in dreaming.


I must go to bed now. Do not say anything interesting for 8 more hours.

 

[the_awesome]

There are different levels of conscious here. Conscious as in self aware. Or conscious as in being able to perceive. My cat is conscious in the sense that he can perceive. But he is not self aware. So I say all dreams are conscious because were are perceving things, and then remembering these perceptions.

What about animals and emotions in dreams? I've watched my dog whimper while asleep - perhaps because she was dreaming of her fellow brothers and sisters?

Maybe a dream unifies the body, mind, and spirit. It provides you with insight into ourselves and a means for self-exploration. But if that were true, then would the animal have a spirit?

Or maybe you are in some form of a conscious state...one which is yet to be defined? When you dream of falling, you wake up before you hit the ground. You are conscious in knowing that when you hit the ground its gunna hurt. But your mind is "tricked" into thinking it is real. We know that when you sleep...your mind switches off many of its functions. Functions which could be crucial in recognizing that the world we see (in a dream), is actually complete ********. Or maybe its your brain creating an illusion? We all know how easily your eyes can be tricked.

 

[ninar]

Typically it will be said we are unconscious during sleep, but I think that's just the naming, we do have different states of perception, in which different processes dominate our activities. The discussion just seems pointless to me, the ways of mind is so complex... depending of its estructure, capabilities, and limitations, it will direct, control, purge, reorganize, etc. info and activities in a way that suits best the ocasion... simply put: we are sometimes kinda*: conscious while we sleep; asleep when we are late at night studying; in a coma-like state when we are passed out on alcohol, etc. And even, sometimes, a combination of all those, in different magnitudes.

 

[the_awesome]

Typically it will be said we are unconscious during sleep, but I think that's just the naming, we do have different states of perception, in which different processes dominate our activities. The discussion just seems pointless to me, the ways of mind is so complex... depending of its estructure, capabilities, and limitations, it will direct, control, purge, reorganize, etc. info and activities in a way that suits best the ocasion... simply put: we are kinda* conscious while we sleep; we are kinda* asleep when we are late at night studying; we are kinda* in a coma-like state when we are passed out on alcohol, etc.

Well put :)

 

[DaveC426913]

Typically it will be said we are unconscious during sleep, but I think that's just the naming, we do have different states of perception, in which different processes dominate our activities. The discussion just seems pointless to me, the ways of mind is so complex...

That's kind of like saying molecules are so complex there's little point in naming them. Or animals. Or star formation. your suggestion is that we just give up.

 

[DaveC426913]

None of this demonstrates that a dream is a conscious state as opposed to an unconscious state (which is the crux of our disagreement). You have to also demonstrate that the unconscious state does not include any of the elements found in dreaming.


I must go to bed now. Do not say anything interesting for 8 more hours.

You may resume now.

 

[ninar]

I believe there is a difficult to exactly distinguish between what it is an alteration of a state, and what is actually a totally different phenomenon. And, well, the discussion I have seen here, I think it recurs to a set of terms that tend to antagonize to each other, or seem to inherently imply something that may not very well describe what I believe requires a more... subtlety in drawing distinctions or in attaching to certain definitions.

 

[ninar]

But no, I would never imply to give it up, maybe I was too euphoric at the moment haha

 

[Freeman Dyson]

You may resume now.

Let me try a different avenue this time..

Lucid dreaming. Would you say that lucid dreams are conscious? Lucid dreamers can control and construct their dreams. They are aware that they are dreaming and play with it.

Are you people who are hallucinating conscious?

 

[WaveJumper]

Are you people who are hallucinating conscious?

We believe we are the 'normal' ones because our hallucinations are shared by more than 6 billion people. Another reason is that our 'hallucinations' appear meaningful and behave according to strict laws and constants, and there is an obvious way for us to follow towards progress and more pleasing 'hallucinations'(oooops life).

 

[Freeman Dyson]

We believe we are the 'normal' ones because our hallucinations are shared by more than 6 billion people. Another reason is that our 'hallucinations' appear meaningful and behave according to strict laws and constants, and there is an obvious way for us to follow towards progress and more pleasing 'hallucinations'(oooops life).

As somebody once said, reality is nothing but a collective hunch.

Who is to say the scizophrenic's reality isn't the real one? Just because it is in the minority?

 

[Sorry!]

As somebody once said, reality is nothing but a collective hunch.

Who is to say the scizophrenic's reality isn't the real one? Just because it is in the minority?

This is an old argument and it has been beaten silly. People still cling to it however.
Yes, reality is based on our perceptions but that doesn't mean that they are wrong or 'unfalsifiable' in the 'reality' we live in.

When a person hallucinates it is not only provable scientifically (by studying the brain) but also by cross referencing with other people/animals/instruments.

If no other person can see this hallucination, no other animal can sense it and no instruments detect it. Then it's quite safe to say that this person who is hallucinating is indeed removed from reality.

What is reality? As I said it's based on our perceptions of what we sense 'around' us.

 

[kote]

I'm skipping the thread here, but I'll point out I think this question is very related to ethics and morality. The real world is where we and other people exist. You are not morally responsible for killing an imaginary dream ninja. You are morally responsible for killing your real neighbor.

One thing you can say about the difference between reality and a dream is that reality is where morality and ethics must live.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let me try a different avenue this time..

Lucid dreaming. Would you say that lucid dreams are conscious? Lucid dreamers can control and construct their dreams. They are aware that they are dreaming and play with it.

Are you people who are hallucinating conscious?

The issue of lucid dreaming is admittedly somewhere in the middle - even you acknowledge that (or it wouldn't be under discussion).

But how does that help us answer the original question?

Personally, I think it makes my case, since the acknowledgment of a 'middle' requires the existence of two 'ends' opposite each other.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm skipping the thread here, but I'll point out I think this question is very related to ethics and morality. The real world is where we and other people exist. You are not morally responsible for killing an imaginary dream ninja. You are morally responsible for killing your real neighbor.

One thing you can say about the difference between reality and a dream is that reality is where morality and ethics must live.

By the same same logic, the question is related to physics, since the real world is where horses are wingless and trees grow on Earth. Imaginary pegasi and deep space trees exist in the dream world, therefore the difference between reality and a dream is that reality is where physics must live.

In short, your logic accomplishes little. It's effectively circular: "reality is where real things exist. Dreamland is where imaginary things exist".

 

[kote]

By the same same logic, the question is related to physics, since the real world is where horses are wingless and trees grow on Earth. Imaginary pegasi and deep space trees exist in the dream world, therefore the difference between reality and a dream is that reality is where physics must live.

In short, your logic accomplishes little. It's effectively circular: "reality is where real things exist. Dreamland is where imaginary things exist".

Interesting. So is your claim that we are just as morally responsible for our actions in dreams as we are for our actions in reality?

I really don't see the point here, unless that is your claim. I was responding the OP's question with a connection to an important related topic that hasn't been discussed.

Epistemologically there is nothing interesting to talk about. You have your perceptions, and typically they are relatively continuous and vivid. You call this "reality" to distinguish it from occasional, mostly less vivid, dreams or hallucinations. You have no evidence that it is not a dream or even that anyone or anything else exists. Referencing consensus or 6 billion other people is trivially circular and invalid. Arguments about whether or not you are conscious during dreams are semantic. Pick a definition for "conscious" - it's irrelevant to anything meaningful.

The thread could end with that. We could say that we don't have any evidence for such a thing as reality, so the OP's question is meaningless and unanswerable. The OP, however, implicitly assumes that there is an objective reality. Given this assumption, the only meaningful difference between objective reality and subjective hallucination would be the applicability of morality. The only other difference is, as you said, reality is real and dreams are dreams.

 

[Sorry!]

We have really no ethical code during our sleep because we are in a state of altered conciousness. So you can kill that guy or slap that girl and it won't bother you in the slightest.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

The issue of lucid dreaming is admittedly somewhere in the middle - even you acknowledge that (or it wouldn't be under discussion).

But how does that help us answer the original question?

Personally, I think it makes my case, since the acknowledgment of a 'middle' requires the existence of two 'ends' opposite each other.

Well I wanted to establish if you thought lucid dreams were conscious before I could make my next point. Do you think there can be any conscious in sleep or dream state? If vivid dreams are conscious, then what is the exact mental state that changes from a regular dream to a vivid one? Does the conscious "light" come on? Often vivid dreams start off as regular dreams. What is the "switch" that changes? Vivid dreamers can recognize and take control of normal dreams.

Have you ever had a dream where you knew you were dreaming? If so, would you consider yourself conscious during that?

Here is that guy again talking about lucidity in dreams:

Let’s suppose I’m having a lucid dream. The first thing I think is, "Oh this is a dream, here I am." Now the "I" here is who I think Stephen is. Now what’s happening in fact is that Stephen is asleep in bed somewhere, not in this world at all, and he’s having a dream that he’s in this room talking to you. With a little bit of lucidity I’d say, "this is a dream, and you’re all in my dream." A little more lucidity and I’d know you’re a dream figure and this is a dream-table, and this must be a dream-shirt and a dream-watch and what’s this? It’s got to be a dream-hand and well, so what’s this? It’s a dream-Stephen! So a moment ago I thought this is who I am and now I know that it’s just a mental model of who I am.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

This is an old argument and it has been beaten silly. People still cling to it however.
Yes, reality is based on our perceptions but that doesn't mean that they are wrong or 'unfalsifiable' in the 'reality' we live in.

When a person hallucinates it is not only provable scientifically (by studying the brain) but also by cross referencing with other people/animals/instruments.

If no other person can see this hallucination, no other animal can sense it and no instruments detect it. Then it's quite safe to say that this person who is hallucinating is indeed removed from reality.

What is reality? As I said it's based on our perceptions of what we sense 'around' us.

Who says the true reality has to be scientific? Or that science would work in it? You are biased by the standards of the reality we live in.

I am not saying dreams are the real reality either btw.

 

[DaveC426913]

Interesting. So is your claim that we are just as morally responsible for our actions in dreams as we are for our actions in reality?

No, my claim is that morals and ethics do not help define conscious from unconscious. In less diplomatic language, I think your initial statement is irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well I wanted to establish if you thought lucid dreams were conscious before I could make my next point. Do you think there can be any conscious in sleep or dream state? If vivid dreams are conscious, then what is the exact mental state that changes from a regular dream to a vivid one? Does the conscious "light" come on? Often vivid dreams start off as regular dreams. What is the "switch" that changes? Vivid dreamers can recognize and take control of normal dreams.

Have you ever had a dream where you knew you were dreaming? If so, would you consider yourself conscious during that?

Here is that guy again talking about lucidity in dreams:

Agreed. I definitely think there is a continuum from consciouisness to unconsciousness, yes. i.e. lucid dreaming definitely has some elements of consciousness about it.

Personally, I have all range of dreams and conscious-unconscious states. I often have vivid dreams, I've had dreams where I know I'm dreaming, I've had dreams where I have been - repeatedly - able to change the outcome, and I've had waking states that blur the line with unconscious (as I'm falling asleep I am often able to suspend myself in a state where I am conscious yet unable to focus on a thought before it slips out of ... my thoughts. I can keep this state indefinitely, and can observe myself in this state. "Well, isn't that interesting. I cannot remember what I was just thinking about. I was thinking about getting ready to go to work ... and ... Well isn't that interesting. I again cannot remember what I was just thinking about. I wonder how long I can keep this up.").


While I agree that, in lucid dreaming, there is defintely an element of consciousness, it does not follow that when you are dreaming you are in a conscious state, which is the original claim that I am refuting.

 

[DaveC426913]

Who says the true reality has to be scientific?
Or that science would work in it?

These sentences suggest a misguided underestanding of what science is.

Something "being scientific" or "science not working on it" makes no sense. "Being scientific" is a behaviour of a person, not a property of an object. It just means being rational and methodical. You apply scientific methods to understand a phenomenon in an attempt to model (explain) the phenomenon. If you can't model it accurately enough for your liking then it is simply that you don't have the right model yet and don't know enough about it.

The only way science "doesn't work" on something is when you do not have any observations to go on (such as God or pre-Big Bang).



Also: "True reality"? As opposed to what? "false reality"? C'maaaaaaan.

 

[kote]

No, my claim is that morals and ethics do not help define conscious from unconscious. In less diplomatic language, I think your initial statement is irrelevant.

What does the definition of consciousness have to do with whether or not there is a meaningful distinction between the experience of true and false ontologies? The entire discussion of levels of consciousness presupposes brains are real and dreams are a function of brain states. This assumes an answer to the original question.

Philosophy has a long way to go before discussions of brain states can tell us anything about basic ontology, starting with solving the problem of induction. Until we get past that, psychology has no place in deciding whether or not we are living in a matrix induced dream or what it would mean if we were. Meaning still belongs to the realm of ethics and aesthetics.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

These sentences suggest a misguided underestanding of what science is.

Something "being scientific" or "science not working on it" makes no sense. "Being scientific" is a behaviour of a person, not a property of an object. It just means being rational and methodical. You apply scientific methods to understand a phenomenon in an attempt to model (explain) the phenomenon. If you can't model it accurately enough for your liking then it is simply that you don't have the right model yet and don't know enough about it.

The only way science "doesn't work" on something is when you do not have any observations to go on (such as God or pre-Big Bang).
Also: "True reality"? As opposed to what? "false reality"? C'maaaaaaan.

No doubt science works in this world. We can be rational and figure things out. My point is, who says it has to be that way? Who says that's what reality must necessarily contain? It's applying our conscious values and standards, like morality as you stated, to a different reality. The fact that the dream world is immoral doesn't make it any less real. So my argument is that the incomprehensibilty of it shouldn't make any less real in the same fashion. We agree that that the dream world is less comphrensible than the waking world. Does the fact that we can make more sense of A than B, really make A more "real"? Einstein said:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

A universe that isn't comprehensible would still be a universe ,would it not?. I'm not saying our science can't test the dream world at all. I am saying why must the true reality be able to be scientifically measured? Why must it bow to us and our methods? What law states that this must happen? I am essentially subsituting the word "scientific" for "comprehensible" here. Who says the world has to be comprehensible, and why is that the standard for being more real? Because it seems the argument is that because the waking state can be made more sense of that it is more real. The waking state is more "scientific". And by that I mean more comprehensible. When I say science doest work in dreams, I meant you can't sit down in your dream and do an experiment and some equations. So science "doesnt work" in a dream. And you are holding it against the dream world. We can do experiments and logic here, but not there. It holds no power in the dream world. One can't be scientific in their dreams. Or can they?

 

[Sorry!]

No doubt science works in this world. We can be rational and figure things out. My point is, who says it has to be that way? Who says that's what reality must necessarily contain? It's applying our conscious values and standards, like morality as you stated, to a different reality. The fact that the dream world is immoral doesn't make it any less real. So my argument is that the incomprehensibilty of it shouldn't make any less real in the same fashion. We agree that that the dream world is less comphrensible than the waking world. Does the fact that we can make more sense of A than B, really make A more "real"? Einstein said:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

A universe that isn't comprehensible would still be a universe ,would it not?. I'm not saying our science can't test the dream world at all. I am saying why must the true reality be able to be scientifically measured? Why must it bow to us and our methods? What law states that this must happen? I am essentially subsituting the word "scientific" for "comprehensible" here. Who says the world has to be comprehensible, and why is that the standard for being more real? Because it seems the argument is that because the waking state can be made more sense of that it is more real. The waking state is more "scientific". And by that I mean more comprehensible. When I say science doest work in dreams, I meant you can't sit down in your dream and do an experiment and some equations. So science "doesnt work" in a dream. And you are holding it against the dream world. We can do experiments and logic here, but not there. It holds no power in the dream world. One can't be scientific in their dreams. Or can they?

I don't recall anyone saying this. Quit taking things out of context and arguing... it's like you're basically arguing with yourself.

Do I believe that we can only know 'reality' based on our perceptions of it? Yes. Do you? I don't know or care it has nothing to contribute to this conversation.

 

[DaveC426913]

No doubt science works in this world. We can be rational and figure things out. My point is, who says it has to be that way? Who says that's what reality must necessarily contain? It's applying our conscious values and standards, like morality as you stated, to a different reality.

You didn't comprehend a word I said.

Science is not a "thing that works" or doesn't work. Science is a method. If things seem irrational or incomprehensible, we can ask questions, make observations and deduce how things work, or don't work. Whether those things do or do not work does not invalidate the technique for testing anything.

The only thing required for science to work is
1] a rational mind
2] a sense attached to that rational mind

Because it seems the argument is that because the waking state can be made more sense of that it is more real. The waking state is more "scientific". And by that I mean more comprehensible. When I say science doest work in dreams, I meant you can't sit down in your dream and do an experiment and some equations. So science "doesnt work" in a dream.

The only reason science doesn't "work" in a dream because requirement 1], above, is missing. if you could get a rational mind in your dream, you could apply scientific techniques.

The fact that the only thing you have to measure the forty-mile tall unicorn is a beachball of helium-flavoured macaroni does not render science inoperative.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

You didn't comprehend a word I said.

Science is not a "thing that works" or doesn't work. Science is a method. If things seem irrational or incomprehensible, we can ask questions, make observations and deduce how things work, or don't work. Whether those things do or do not work does not invalidate the technique for testing anything.

The only thing required for science to work is
1] a rational mind
2] a sense attached to that rational mind

The only reason science doesn't "work" in a dream because requirement 1], above, is missing. if you could get a rational mind in your dream, you could apply scientific techniques.

The fact that the only thing you have to measure the forty-mile tall unicorn is a beachball of helium-flavoured macaroni does not render science inoperative.

But what if the dream world actually is irrational and incomprensible at its bottom?

I am talking about the irrationality of the dream enviroment, regardless of the rationality of the dreamer. What could invalidate the techniques for testing is the lack of existence of any patterns to test. The scientific method was developed for figuring out the waking world, not for figuring out the dream world. You seem to have trouble imagining a world that humans couldn't make sense of through the scientific method.

Science is a method that may not be applicable to all things. Yes, it is a thing that works or doesn't work. The reason science may not work in a dream is because the dream is in another world that doesn't obey any laws of science! What else is required besides a rational mind and senses, is a comprenhisble environment where patterns emerge and you can deduce things with that mind and senses. The environment must be rational as well. You seem to assume this is characteristic of every environment. I say you are assuming too much. We should assume nothing. Can you imagine a world where science wouldn't work? Even if you manage to get a rational mind into a dream, if the dream world is still absurd with no patterns, your rational mind won't help you one bit. Because ration and sense don't rule here. You are in alice in wonderland. up is down. but tomorrow, up might be west. Freud thought that metaphor was the logic or language of dreams. Figuring out dreams is almost like figuring out poetry. They are subjective experiences. What if the same unicorn is measured differently by each dreamer, for example? What if only some dreamers can see the unicorn at all? What if no patterns emerge? Would that make it less real?

 

[Buckethead]

I'm sure there's more to his claim than what you've quoted. I hope there is, because this:

is just silly logic.

I had an in depth conversation awhile back with a fellow lucid dreamer/obeer about this very topic. My initial stand was that lucid dreams/obes can and are considered to be full states of consciousness while the event was occurring, but that common dreams in my opinion may not occur consciously until after one wakes up from sleep at which time the subject is then free to put a consciouness to what was otherwise just non-conscious electrical activity in the brain. She won the debate when she reminded me that if a person is awakened in the middle of a dream, is the dream not interrupted at that very point. So I would have to vote on this one that indeed a person must be not fully conscious, but conscious nontheless. Of course it does depend on the definition of consciousness. If being in a passive state of listening and watching without any self awareness is not considered consciousness, then the common dreamer would of course not have any consciousness.

 

[DaveC426913]

But what if the dream world actually is irrational and incomprensible at its bottom?

I am talking about the irrationality of the dream enviroment, regardless of the rationality of the dreamer. What could invalidate the techniques for testing is the lack of existence of any patterns to test. The scientific method was developed for figuring out the waking world, not for figuring out the dream world. You seem to have trouble imagining a world that humans couldn't make sense of through the scientific method.

Science is a method that may not be applicable to all things. Yes, it is a thing that works or doesn't work. The reason science may not work in a dream is because the dream is in another world that doesn't obey any laws of science! What else is required besides a rational mind and senses, is a comprenhisble environment where patterns emerge and you can deduce things with that mind and senses. The environment must be rational as well. You seem to assume this is characteristic of every environment. I say you are assuming too much. We should assume nothing. Can you imagine a world where science wouldn't work? Even if you manage to get a rational mind into a dream, if the dream world is still absurd with no patterns, your rational mind won't help you one bit. Because ration and sense don't rule here. You are in alice in wonderland. up is down. but tomorrow, up might be west. Freud thought that metaphor was the logic or language of dreams. Figuring out dreams is almost like figuring out poetry. They are subjective experiences. What if the same unicorn is measured differently by each dreamer, for example? What if only some dreamers can see the unicorn at all? What if no patterns emerge? Would that make it less real?

You're missing the point of the technique. The rational mind will observe and conclude that certain cause and effect assumptions do not hold true. That is still a perfectly valid observation. Granted, the rational mind might not get very far in learning the rules about his world, but that isn't a flaw in the technique.

 

[Evo]

I find the "lucid dreaming" thing I see gathering popularity on the internet rather funny.

Since I was a child, I had the ability to stop, rewind, and change whatever I was dreaming. I called it "directed dreaming" when I described it to people, because I was like a movie director. Of course, this as after I realized other people did not have the ability to control their dreams. I can also create dreams by starting the dream before I fall asleep. If I awake from a dream, I can decide if I want to continue the dream when I go back to sleep. In other words, I'd say that I am aware and in control perpaps 98% of the time. That doesn't mean that I think that I am able to go other places *in reality* in a dream. No.

 

[Buckethead]

I'm skipping the thread here, but I'll point out I think this question is very related to ethics and morality. The real world is where we and other people exist. You are not morally responsible for killing an imaginary dream ninja. You are morally responsible for killing your real neighbor.

One thing you can say about the difference between reality and a dream is that reality is where morality and ethics must live.

Interesting point, but not quite true. I had a lucid dream where I tried to take advantage of someone (which normally is pretty easy) and was met with disapproval from this person. I was surprised by the disapproval (this had never happened up to this point) and was compelled to back off out of courtesy and for moral reasons. Go figure!

 

[Buckethead]

I find the "lucid dreaming" thing I see gathering popularity on the internet rather funny.

Since I was a child, I had the ability to stop, rewind, and change whatever I was dreaming. I called it "directed dreaming" when I described it to people, because I was like a movie director. Of course, this as after I realized other people did not have the ability to control their dreams. I can also create dreams by starting the dream before I fall asleep. If I awake from a dream, I can decide if I want to continue the dream when I go back to sleep. In other words, I'd say that I am aware and in control perpaps 98% of the time. That doesn't mean that I think that I am able to go other places *in reality* in a dream. No.

I had belonged to a newsgroup called alt.out-of-body about 10 years ago which was at the time an incredibly active community of people that experienced both lucid dreams and out of body experiences. It was at that time that I realized how many people experienced this phenomenon. I had always felt special about it, having experience this for over 35 years, but now realize that it is much more common. Still one has to be very careful when talking to people in person as there are still vastly more folks who think it's pure lunacy. It is, as you say, becoming more and more popular as the forums about it continue to pop up and I suppose it's similar to any minority simply coming out of the closet as the fears and phobias around it start to disapate.

Like you, I also have the ability to wake, then go back to the same place I was. Gotta see what happens next after all. Also DaveC just mentioned that he has the ability to be in a state of not remembering his current thoughts over and over and I can do that too. I can also project my sense of sight to a remote non-real location while knowing my current location simultaneously. In addition I am able to comprehend something truly incomprehensible at certain times but the comprehension of course soon vanishes to be lost for good (these are my moments of "pure insight"). There is quite a bit about the "dream" world that is really making itself into popular discussions and I think it's just great.

 

[magpies]

About a page back I saw people talking about responsiblitys we have in dreams and such... I would say the type of person you are will play out in the dream. If you are a person who is likely to shoot someone attacking you I would guess you would probably do the same in a dream.

Also talking about rewinding dreams is interesting or being able to control the dream your going to have. I personaly don't think I would even wants to be able to do that... So perhaps that is part of the reason why I haven't yet?

 

[DaveC426913]

I had belonged to a newsgroup called alt.out-of-body about 10 years ago which was at the time an incredibly active community of people that experienced both lucid dreams and out of body experiences. It was at that time that I realized how many people experienced this phenomenon. I had always felt special about it, having experience this for over 35 years, but now realize that it is much more common. Still one has to be very careful when talking to people in person as there are still vastly more folks who think it's pure lunacy. It is, as you say, becoming more and more popular as the forums about it continue to pop up and I suppose it's similar to any minority simply coming out of the closet as the fears and phobias around it start to disapate.

Wait a minute. Out-of-body experience is a different block of cheese.

All the other phenomena we've mentioned are entirely internal to the person. They're simply things happening in the brain. Out-of-body experiences (that are claimed to be genuine) are studyable - and falsifiable.

And yeah, people will have a big objection to this one. There is no known mechanism that allows one's perception to leave one's body. That one needs to be demionstrated satisfactorily before you'll get any buy-in.

I can also project my sense of sight to a remote non-real location while knowing my current location simultaneously.

I don't understand this one. I am currently projecting my sense of sight to Jupiter. Are you suggesting you have some form of genuine clairvoyance?

In addition I am able to comprehend something truly incomprehensible at certain times but the comprehension of course soon vanishes to be lost for good (these are my moments of "pure insight").

Others call these moments of "being stoned".

All seriounsess aside. One of the problems with the brain is that it possible to have the brain think something is truly profound, but that doesn't mean it really is. The feeling of profundity can be switched on independent of the presence of anything actually happening. It is a portion of the brain that actually assigns a feeling of importance to events. (This is often cited as the source of profound zeal seen in accounts such as divine visitation and UFO encounters.)

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Yeah, that guy who first proved lucid dreaming has written extensively on NDE and OBE. He says they are totally explained by biology and not supernatural at all. Some kind of sensory cutoff is happening.

I can't totally rule them out though I guess..

Anyway, here is some more interesting comments by him:

RMN: There seems to be a correlation between psychedelic consciousness and lucid consciousness in the dream state.

Stephen: There’s a lot in common between the two states. In fact people can in the dream state, take a dream "psychedelic" and have it produce an effect.

DJB: Terence McKenna says that he smokes DMT in his dreams and then has the full experience.

Stephen: And what that shows is that what prevents us from having these experiences is not the chemical, it’s the mental framework. So in a way psychedelics can be a kind of guide in revealing some of the potential in the mind. I think they have limitations in terms of taking us to the visions they show us. One can take the mistaken path of saying, well since I had the taste of it with the substance, if I keep taking it I’ll eventually get the whole thing because more of the same should help. It doesn’t seem to work that way.

Good interview really:

http://www.futurehi.net/docs/Laberge_WakingDreamer.html