Talk:Lucid dream/Archive 2

message: We appear to have the problem of an ever-expanding list of "things to do in a dream". Any objections to removing this section altogether? Is there any information in this section which ought to be kept? Mdwh 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest reducing it to a minimal number of general ideas instead. --Zoz (t) 14:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is a great section since the possibilities are not obvious. Specific dreams should be removed, but general activities should be left here. Herbys 05:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I reduced the list to 4 items, linked its wikibooks page and moved material to the talk page there. Considering there might be objections to the removal, I'm moving the whole section here as well. --Zoz (t) 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: While the list was becoming too extensive, I don't think a list of four activities gives an idea of the range of possibilities. I think the aim of this section should be to enable a person that has never had a lucid dream to get an idea of the possibilities, and also to give active lucid dreamers ideas to explore. For instance, Experimentation (which was not the same as Real Life Rehearsal. Rehearsal refers to acting things that you intend to do in real life, while experimentation is basically about doing things that you wouldn't do) is not included in any of the four categories. Neither is spiritual practice. Herbys 05:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia article. I too think that the aim of this section should be to enable someone who's never had a lucid dream to get the idea of the possibilities, but I don't think it should be turned into an "Advices/Ideas for Lucid Dreamers" section. Such advices, detailed ideas etc. should be in wikibooks imo. --Zoz (t) 11:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Things to do in a lucid dream

message: From Unsolved problems in neuroscience:
"Sleep: What is the function of sleep? Why do we dream? What are the underlying brain mechanisms? What is its relation to anesthesia?"
Should we add Lucid dreaming to :Category:Unsolved problems in neuroscience? --Zoz (t) 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unsolved problem in neuroscience? 

message: Is the picture of the girl sleeping near the top of the article really necessary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.62.45 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 June 2006.
:No it isn't. But I don't see why that picture should not be there. --Zoz (t) 11:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it's a good picture, but the caption is absurd.  The girl isn't even asleep--she's posing--so what's with the "and hasn't reached REM sleep yet"? Ckerr 14:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree so I removed it. I think it would look a bit better with (an accurate) caption though, but right now I don't feel creative. --Zoz (t) 15:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to think of something good as well.  It is suggested that we have one per WP:WIAFA. Morphh 17:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's just that the article looks so freaking dull, especially considering what's it about. It's hard for one to believe that lucid dreaming is a mind-widening experience if the only visual thing we can come up with is that boring REM graph. If it's necessary that the image is more closely related to the subject, someone just take a picture of yourself holding your nose or something. - Sylph 19:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The only other thing I could think of besides someone sleeping would be an artists interpretation of a lucid dream, that would probably be more interesting. I looked, but couldn't find anything that was fair use...LilDice 17:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the picture.  I don't see it as a pointless pic.  Sleeping is the point as it is critical to having a lucid dream.  Unless you have a pic of an actual lucid dream, I think the act of sleeping is completely relevant to discussing dreams.  Morphh 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How about something from the movie "Waking Life", like a scrambled clock? The movie's about lucid dreaming, and has instruction concerning some of the tip-offs to look for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.186.101.234 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: Why is there a verify tag on the top of this page? I was looking for sections that lacked cited sources and was unable to find any, LaBarge is heavily cited, and I don't see a problem with that. LilDice 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Zoz removed it, that answers that question.. LilDice 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the tag when there were virtually no cited sources in the article. It just stayed there while we were having more and more citations. --Zoz (t) 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified Tag Needed? 

message: Is there evidence to conclude that natural lucid dreamers are somewhat more intelligent than those who can't control their dreams as easily? dogman15 04:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never read that. I hope that's not in the article, or are you just asking? If I had to take a guess, I would say that they just have their brain chemistry naturally different or trained to allow dream control easier than a person with a more standard brain. LilDice 12:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucid Dream Intelligence? 

message: I have to disagree with the ed, who decided to enfoce WP:EL on forums link. Forums like dreamviews add tons of lesser known unpublished LD techniques that go into much more detail than we do on the article here... I say keep them.
LilDice 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I was concerned that this article seemed to be becoming a target for linkspam, but if you find the links a valuable resource, that's fine. Wmahan. 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate it and yes, topics like this can be magnents, but dreamviews is a legit forum not selling anything that doesnt require registration to read. LilDice 00:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding your own link to Wikipedia is not allowed; please see Wikipedia:External links. I will not object if a neutral editor wants to add the link. Wmahan. 19:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like 62.194.18.166 (talk · contribs) also added the link to Dream; I've removed it from that page, which is not specific to lucid dreaming. Wmahan. 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting remark. Is that consistent with the fact that the very commercial Lucidity Institute is also listed? The most recent mail I got from them was on a $ 2.500 dollar Lucid Dreaming course on Hawaii. At least the course I created is for free (yes, I do ask for a donation to organize free clinics for the poor in Guatemala if you like the course). So, let's wait for a neutral user to add the link to Wikipedia! Paul Eijkemans 23:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the WP:EL policy. The lucidity institute has also published tons of valuable scientific research.... LilDice 14:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am a firm believer in the mentioned policy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a commercial link list. However, as stressed above, some of the links that where provided in this article earlier where a real ad on for me. They go in more dept and give exercises and examples beyond the framework of this entry. I particularly liked the link to the audio course Paul is revering to. Free to download, practical and immediately to use on your mp3 player. Walter Hottinga 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Forums links allowed? 

message: I cannot find anything on here about controlling what time we wake up and how can we control it.  Before this gets deleted could someone link to a page which explains this.
i.e. If I want to wake up at 5.30am can I tell myself the night before I want to and will I?
:There is this invention called an alarm clock.... LilDice 15:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice answer, a smart-assed one, but nice just the same. As to the original inquiry, this is possible but it has nothing to do with lucid dreaming, unless you plan on working the dream into the premise that you must physically awaken at such a specified time. The amount of planning and subsequent training, as it were, that you'd need to do in order to achieve this during a lucid dream would be substantial.
A person who awakens at a set time each day (be it morning or night) will be able to allow their body to physically mimic the pattern that they are consciously following. This may not be exact, since there are quite a few factors to consider (excessive fatigue, where the body would place priority on recuperation before it would allow itself to awaken, etc.) but it is possible. I imagine there are quite a sizable (but not a deluge) number of individuals capable of this phenomenon, whether they are aware of it or not. 71.156.83.248 00:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control Waking Up 

message: "Face fears: Because pain does not exist in lucid dreaming..."
:Is this meant literally? I don't believe it's true. --Ihope127 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, it seems like that is based on an educated assumption. Pain is a reaction felt by the body but perceived initially by the mind. If you believe you are being cut, beaten, set on fire, then you are easily susceptible to believing that such resulting sensations are afflicting you. This seems more applicable during a lucid dream, given that you are aware of the dream and reality, where the mind would potentially pick up on the pain induced and allow you to feel it physically, even if it were not something of a lasting nature. But, this hinges on the belief of the individual. If you are well aware that you can't be hurt by a dream, your mind wouldn't potentially register the resulting pain. 71.156.83.248 00:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely there's an instinct somewhere stating how to have sex. I don't know why this would also provide what it "feels like", but I've seen no evidence against it. --Ihope127 23:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No pain in lucid dreams? 

message: i added this it's based on personal experience however, I feel it's warranted..
Recent alteration to one’s body, for example a broken limb resulting in a cast, or a new tattoo, braces, etc.. which may not appear in the dream.
It was really easy for me to become lucid in dreams after I had broken my leg. I'd be running across fields or in a city or anywhere and notice that my leg was not in cast and that would cause to become lucid.
:WP:ORLilDice 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  trauma 

message: This section was moved to it's own article, feel free to improve the general wording of the section in this article though. I just felt the list was getting a bit out of hand. LilDice 21:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved pop culture to [[Lucid dreaming in popular culture]] 

message: I see that you have made a couple of minor alterations to my paragraph about Hutton's Paradox. Unfortunately, I am unable to contact you directly or to leave a message on a user talk page since you are not yet a registered user.
I disagree with your changes, and I'll explain why. While both Hutton's Paradox and Zhuangzi's Dream concern the nature of reality and involve asking oneself "Am I dreaming?" there is a fundamental difference. Hutton's Paradox is derived from two contentions:
*Asking oneself "Am I dreaming?" in a dream proves that one is since one does not ask oneself that question in waking life.
*One can ask precisely that question in waking life.
So, asks Hutton, does it not prove one is dreaming? Or is life really a dream? Zhuangzi, on the other hand, once dreamt he was a butterfly, fluttering happily here and there, and on waking didn't know whether he was a man who had dreamt he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was a man. A delightful story, but not technically a paradox. (It is, incidentally, mentioned by Hutton.) Unless you suggest otherwise, I will at sometime revert your edit and add a paragraph about Zhuangzi's Dream.
Jake Rilko 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't make sense to say that "asking oneself 'am I dreaming?' doesn't happen in waking life and thus proves it is a dream if the 2nd premise of the so called 'fallacy' says exactly the opposite.Wikidudeman 09:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unregistered User 130.182.27.13

message: For GA status, you'll probably want to convert several of those lists into prose, can't have good prose when there's not prose to be good and all :/. Homestarmy 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A preliminary suggestion

message: A quick scan of this article shows that there are several "citation needed" tags present.  These statements must be sourced before the article can meet the Good Article criteria.  Rather than fail the article, I am placing it on hold, which will allow up to seven days for this improvement to be made.  I will review the article at that time (or sooner, if a message is left here or on my talk page indicating that the work is complete). Shimeru 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned up the citations as asked, thanks. LilDice 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  After going over the article, I find that it's reasonably well-written and broad.  Its images are appropriately tagged.  I'm still a little concerned by statements that are unreferenced or appear to express a POV, though.  Namely, the third paragraph of the lead, the sentence "Many people report having experienced a lucid dream during their lives, often in childhood.", and the sentence "Though occurrences like these may seem out of place in waking life, they may seem perfectly normal to a dreaming mind and learning to pick up on these dream signs will help in recognizing that one is dreaming."  The subsection on "false awakenings" and the bit about "dream signs" are also unreferenced.  Do you think you could find citations for these? Shimeru 21:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I don't think I'll have a problem. I'll also do another POV scan, this article can get messy sometimes, as lots of people have their own theories. I'll let you know after I do another cleanup round. LilDice 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination on hold 

message: I moved this discussion from  the to-do list, I am not the author:
The first page of this entry overemphasizes the importance and of LeBarge and the vocabulary of his institute which has (had?) an address in Stanford California. His profile has been high in pop-culture, especially when Omni Magazine was being published, however, aside from his Ph.D. thesis under the brilliant William Dement, he has offered little that was not already available from other sources.
Wasn't he the first to demonstrate the existence of LD with scientific evidence, reflected from the predetermined eye movements of his subjects during REM sleep? I understand there is some constroversy whether or not another experimenter did it first. For this reason, though, isn't he called "the father of the lucid dreaming?" I would appreciate if you elaborated on your statement, and I'm sure it would be a great benefit to Wikipedia if you contributed! --Slac 18:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion from to-do list 

message: I've determined that this article meets the criteria for a Good Article.  Congratulations, and thanks for the hard work.  In continuing to improve this article, I would focus primarily on further expanding the history and science sections and on sharpening the prose further. Shimeru 08:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article

message: There are some factors which can affect the ability to experience lucid dreams:
* Some naturals have lucid dreams more often and more easily than others.
Doesn't the fact that some people have lucid dreams more often and easily than others automatically follow from the fact that there are some factors influencing this ability? If so, then we don't need the above bulleted sentence.Exabyte (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, also the whole 'naturals' term is really just slang, I haven't seen it used in an official publication, just thrown around on message boards. LilDice 19:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Naturals" 

message: (copied from my talk page) LilDice 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just have everyone discuss here first. I just want to make sure we're not willy-nilly adding drugs listed to the page, especially ones where there have been no real studies, what are some other's thoughts on this? LilDice 00:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supplements 

message: AP is often believed to be a kind of lucid dream by skeptics.Puddytang 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, but the question is should the Lucid Dream article be associated with pseudoscience like AP... LilDice 02:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Astral Projection? 

message: :Pinching oneself or hitting an object hard. The acute pain usually cannot be felt in dreams.
Do we have any scientific reference for that apart from the popular culture references? I mean, I once tried pinching myself in a lucid dream and it seemed to be real. After I woke up, I realized that it did not involve real pain, but within the dream's universe, it did, so I logically concluded I wasn't dreaming. :-) bogdan 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any references, I'm find with removing it. LilDice 17:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinching oneself 

message: To the anon user who insists, think about it, once you are Lucid there is no difference between a WILD and a DILD, therefore a WILD is an induction technique, not a separate type of lucid dream. LilDice 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WILD is not a separate type 

message: Removing the howto tag, the article is clearly not a classic how-to article, but rather is fully sourced explanation on the scientifically tested processes used to trigger the phenomenon. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 11:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instructions and advice are not appropriate for an article.  Saying a technique is 'ideal' is advice and fails NPOV.  Same goes for "The key to being successful..."  and other similar phrasing.  Advice needs to be attributed to the party making it, and techniques, if they're based on scientific tests, should be phrased in the terms of the tests, not advice for someone seeking to duplicate them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOWTO tag