I'm finding a subtle, but important difference between the the questions 'Am I dreaming?' and 'Is THIS a dream?' The first question focuses on your state and CANNOT BE ANSWERED without taking the additional step of redirecting the attention to the perceived environment where the second question can be asked. Asking 'Is THIS a dream?' first gets directly to the heart of the matter by starting out with a focus on the environment where the question can actually be answered. Asking the first question requires that an additional logical step is taken. Each degree of distance between the question and the answer will result in fewer instances of coming to a correct conclusion. This seems to be a rather nit-picky distinction, but I have found myself stuck in the fog of a dream unable to make the next step into the real question. Being in the habit of asking the second question, rather than the first, seems to increase my chances of coming up with an answer.

Gordon:

Way to kick off the Forum's new year with an excellent thought!

I tend to agree with your logic, if only because it can be so hard for a dreamer to keep his wits about him during a dream. The fewest logical thoughts per dream would be best, so going straight to the point would probably be a simpler path to lucidity.

Although, wouldn't it be excellent to work through this problem during a dream?

Peter

Gordon and Peter:

Instead of asking questions at all, I prefer if-then statements. Here's an if-then series to prove that I'm dreaming (insert your state test of choice; I arbitrarily chose one for my examples):

1. If I can move my arm through a solid object, then I am in a dream environment.

2. If I am in a dream environment, then I am dreaming.

3. Therefore, if I can move my arm through a solid object, then I am dreaming.

This is a three-step process; however, once we agree that all parts of it are true, we can condense it into a single if-then statement, which we can then engrain into our logical beliefs: "If I can move my arm through a solid object, then I am dreaming." We have now reduced a three-step logical process into a single postulate.

Therefore, if we're looking for the simplest logical path to lucidity, then the statement "If I can move my arm through a solid object, then I am dreaming" should work nicely.

I prefer if-then statements to questions because they only have a true or a false condition. If x is true, then y is true; if x is not true, then y is not true; etc. Questions like, "Am I dreaming?" or "Is this a dream?" are slightly more open-ended and can take more factors into account (the logic is fuzzier), but they ultimately rely on an if-then statement (or several) to determine the answer.

Thus, if we really want to cut to the chase in determining our state, then a single if-then statement is as simple as it gets. The only time an if-then statement would fail would be when our logical faculties are so tuned out that they fail to recall the if-then statement properly, in which case there's usually not much that can be done to prompt lucidity anyway (stamps dream with a PRE-LUCID label).

looks at the clock ...And I think I'm going to go to bed now. =)

Andrew

"All it takes to fly is to hurl yourself at the ground... and miss." --Douglas Adams' Life, the Universe, and Everything

Andrew,

Focusing my attention outward and questioning whether its a dream is usually as far as I get before I become lucid. It happens very fast. I rarely get a chance to read something twice or go through any of the Form, Activity, Context, Awareness questions. So for me, zeroing in on the question that is most important.

Its an interesting idea to just make a habit of doing something that would demonstrate the dream state, I may give that a try when I'm on vacation. I know that I wouldn't carry out an elaborate logical sequence no matter how simple it was, but the action of testing solid objects sounds doable. Do you actually go through the logical steps while you are dreaming or are you just describing it to us?

Since we are practicing this during the day in hopes that the habit will transfer into our dreams, it would get a bit tough to actually carry out physical tests very often. I spend a lot of time in front of lots of people where I'm the center of attention and they think I'm strange enough already without noticing that I have a attraction to solid objects around me. Hehe.

Did you notice an increase in becoming lucid when you began doing this method?

Gordon,

Right, I'm awake again.

I think I understand now. You're trying to figure out which question is better for triggering the swift, a+b=c conclusion that you're dreaming. If you're going to think in terms of questions, starting with "Is this a dream?" is probably a good idea. Like you said, "Is this a dream?" puts the focus on the dream environment, which you can readily test for anomalies. Once you determine that your environment is that of a dream, the logical conclusion is that you're dreaming. It's a logical game of connect the dots that can (hopefully) be done without giving it much thought, hence why merely asking the question can prompt lucidity.

Generally, I don't consciously go through any logical steps at all when I become lucid. As you suspected, I was just describing how my logical processes are probably working when an obvious dreamsign catches my attention. The solid objects thing was just one of many occurrences we could subsitute into that statement. We could just as easily say, "If the words on a piece of paper change when I look at them, look away, and look again, then I must be dreaming."

I generally don't say to myself, "Well, if this happens then I must be dreaming," although I have done so on a few occasions when the setting was extremely realistic by all other indications. Usually, lucidity is just a lightbulb effect. I see text dancing or notice that I seem to have fallen through a wall and have an "Aha!" moment without any further questioning or proving.

I've found that the solid objects test works about as well at increasing the frequency of lucidity as any other state test does, which is usually determined by the variety of situations and frequency of performing it while awake. It was the first one I was regularly able to use to prove to myself, "I'm dreaming!" Usually, it's not what prompts my suspicion (there are plenty of other dreamsigns that do that), but it's frequently what confirms it if I have any doubts.

That said, yes, I did notice an increase in frequency of lucidity when I started using it, as it gave me a very reliable yes or no, true or false method of determining whether or not I was dreaming (for those tough, non-obvious dreams). Before, I found it too easy to pass off dream oddities by labeling them tricks of the light or (insert other lame rationalization here).

And as for people becoming curious, you can perform a solid object test just with a single finger without attracting much attention. I suppose it works well for me because I habitually lean on things, especially against walls, when I'm talking to people. When I'm already touching something, a state test doesn't take too long and can be done without any noticeable action on my part.

Andrew

Andrew,

Bear with me here, because I am exploring this topic as I write about it.

I am thinking in terms of questions. I see most of our interaction with the world in terms of questions and asking the right questions as the key to effectiveness.

I see the lack of being consistently lucid in dreams as being in a state of denial (failing to ask questions that assume dreaming to be a major state of our consciousness) and progress in increasing lucid dreams as overcoming that denial.

Although I don't doubt that the waking life reality that we share with everyone else is solid and consistent, I do think that much of what we perceive in waking like is projected from the same internal source that creates our dreams. I'm talking about schema in its most overpowering sense. So questioning our external environment in waking life is more than just creating habits that extend into our dreams, but picking away at the denial that also effects the waking state and has us believing that what we are perceiving is more objective than it really is.

Maybe in the end it won't be a question, but will be a stated conviction, "this is a dream", that will overcome the denial and result in a consistent lucidity.

Right now we are trying to set up a prospective memory task (recognize the dream state, while dreaming, cued by dreamsigns). Maybe what we should be trying to do is to automatize the understanding of the subjectivity of waking life and that will result in more lucidity while dreaming.

I need to sleep on this. : ) I may have taken it in a direction you're not interested in going, but I'm having a good time with this.

I'm off to bed.

Well, this is not new ground at all. It turns out that Paul Tholey suggests asking yourself 'What is real?' or 'Is this a dream?' This seems to be exactly what I am getting at. 'What is real?' questions the objectivity of waking life.

Gayle Gackenbush quotes George Gillespie of the Department of Oriental Studies at the University of Pennsylvania as explaining, "During the day, the yogin should maintain the realization that all things are of the substance of dreams. He [she] should think, 'This is a dream.'" This is again exactly the direction I was going in my previous post.

Gackenbush also quotes Gyaltrul Ripoche as saying, "You have to actually remind yourself that it is all an illusion. Reminding yourself throughout the day as often as you can remember that this is an illusion." This is a bit further than I'm willing to go, because I can't see our shared reality as a complete illusion, even if believing it will help increase the number of lucid dreams.

Dr. LaBerge was definitely aware of this approach and pursued it for a while, but "found that his lucid dreams tapered off". He then went on to develop the MILD technique with much more success. However, from what I've read in Dr. LaBerge's writing, he doesn't reject it and continues to point towards the knowledge that the Tibetans and Sufis have to offer.

What I don't think has been explored (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is the idea that denial is what keeps us non-lucid. We seem to exist in a waking-state centered perspective, similar to the ethnocentric perspective of a person who has never deeply experienced another culture. They can come in contact with another culture, but being bound by the parameters of their own culture, they perceive and interpret everything they experience in terms of their own culture. They are in denial that a worldview completely different from their own exists. Eventually they break down this denial (often painfully) and accept that a world outside their own exists and take on an ethnorelative perspective, acknowledging that theirs is one of many worldviews.

While still in the ethnocentric state, they can even travel the world and be totally immersed in other cultures, but remain in their own cultural bubble.

I think this is what we are doing in the dream state. We visit the dream state, but are unable or unwilling to accept that this world exists, even in the face of what should be overwhelming evidence. Also like breaking ethnocentric denial, it is a slow process to accept the reality of an entirely different state of consciousness even when you've had direct experience that it exists.

The Critical Question or in Tholey's, Gillespie's and Pipoche's case a Critical Statement is the link that chips away at this denial.

Gordon,

I am also having a great deal of fun with this. There's no other heated discussion going on at the moment, and I'm always up for a good bit of mental exploration. Let's keep going.

To clarify my reality test with the objects: I realize now that I made my state test seem extremely habitual and nonchalant; I neglected to mention that proper concentration (i.e. not automatically denying the possibility that this might be a dream--there's that word denial again) is necessary.

On the subject of sensation vs. perception: That's correct. You're right on target when you say that there is essentially no such thing as an objective viewpoint due to perceptual schemas. Every view is subjective, spruced up as the result of the brain making focused sense out of a very large amount of sensory information. Some things are emphasized; some are omitted entirely.

Perception is always different from sensation. While we're awake, incoming sensory information is fed through our existing perceptual schemas, which determine what sensory elements become the focii of our perceptions. In this case, the schemas play a significant role, but they are also taking large amounts of incoming sensory information into account.

In dreams, it seems the reverse is true. The perceptual schemas and sensory memories have the dominant role, while incoming sensations are almost, but not totally (as devices like the NovaDreamer prove) ignored. Incoming sensations are replaced by mental constructs.

Subjective viewpoints seem to get us into all kinds of trouble. Certainly, the shaky reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the widespread proliferation of biases in everything from fashion to employment should attest to that. Perhaps, though, it is not the subjective view in itself that is the problem. The problem more likely stems from our fooling ourselves into thinking that our perceptions are objective when, in fact, they obviously are not. That brings me up to concurring with your statement that denying our perceptions' subjectivity could cause trouble.

However, this isn't to say that complete objectivity is particularly useful, either. When you get right down to it, an objective viewpoint must be defined as perceiving something as EXACTLY what it is--no more, no less.

I recall a story my AP biology instructor told my class once that makes a good illustration of this--maybe bearing this in mind could help us both:

A person was blinded as a young child by an acid spill. His few visual memories faded over the course of his life, replaced by complex audio and tactile memories. Later, in his forties, he had his eyes replaced as part of an experimental surgical procedure, allowing him to see for the first time in decades. Unfortunately, all he saw was a chaotic mass of colors. It took him months to begin to learn to perceive objects as sighted people perceive them, as his only well-developed perceptual schemas were tactile, olfactory, gustatory, or auditory in nature.

That's a purely objective visual view (if there is such a thing): electromagnetic waves in the visible spectrum focused upside down on the retina of the eye, with different wavelengths and intensities detected by specialized receptors, fed into the brain, and not tampered with at all because there's no properly developed perceptual set to determine what fits with what.

Qui est demonstrado, our perceptions are not 100% objective. Indeed, they'd be pretty useless if they were. However, our perceptions would be more useful if we could just get it into our stubborn minds that we are not objective viewers.

Everything has a subjective bias: What if I were blind? imagines a total loss of visual senation What if I were deaf? imagines a total loss of audio sensation What if I were not synesthetic? imagines the skin along his spine NOT behaving like an audio spectrum analyzer What if I were dreaming? imagines something that just happened two seconds ago Wait a minute! I am dreaming! becomes lucid and takes a flight

In a sense, a properly performed state test accomplishes this objective of realizing that the environment around us is not, to use a hackneyed phrase, what it seems. It causes us to think and to realize that we've been running on cognitive autopilot under a laughably false assumption (i.e. that everything in our perceptions is an undeniable statement of objective fact).

Questioning of perception and state tests are really just two means to the same end. Both of them ultimately boil down to getting past the assumptions and perceptual red tape to realize that what we are perceiving and what is actually taking place are two VERY different things. In a dream, what we gullibly accept as a true physical occurrence is actually a mental construct. To become lucid, we have to pass that perceptual barrier.

Since both methods help us realize that our views are subjective, why not combine the two? A good state test involves visualizing what would happen were the situation a dream, even if it turns out not to be one. Ultimately, the reason for a state test originates with a questioning of some sort. Something odd grabs our attention, so we try to prove to ourselves whether we're dreaming or not.

When we do a state test correctly, we do ask a question, even if we do it nonverbally. To link my original reply into this, even an if-then statement is a means of asking a question; someone using one is using basic logic to determine whether the answer to a question is "Yes" or "No."

A question is an attempt to gain an answer, and an attempt to gain an answer is what gives lucidity a fighting chance. The reason why lucidity is so prone to instability may very well stem from a neglect of the concept once we realize we are dreaming.

Once we're lucid, we can go beyond simply knowing we are dreaming. We can try to recall memories from waking life. We can attempt to guess what bits of day residue might've prompted the appearance of character x or object y in the dream. We can defy the "laws" of physics and say to ourselves, "This is possible because this is a dream, a mental construct." All of these seem to promote maintained lucidity because they maintain the correct conclusion without giving the assumption much room to regain control. As soon as we give the assumption room to assert itself by becoming too focused on the novelty of the dream or the possibility that something in it could be real, then lucidity goes out like a light.

Hoo boy, was I longwinded. It wouldn't hurt for me to be a bit more concise. At any rate, I'm going to bed now. thinks it odd that we keep writing these messages right before going to sleep tests state finds out that he's not dreaming

snaps his fingers Oh well.

See, now for me, asking the question is too involved. I haven't gotten my novadreamer yet (backordered) but I like my reality checks to be quick, to the point and most importantly able to flush out a dream instantly! So for this I use my digital watch, digital clocks, and anything written. I look at it then look at it again and if it's still legible and what it was before (maybe a minute different if it's a watch or clock but no more) then I'm not dreaming.

The reality check lists are such a nuisance. A dream could be over before your done checking LOL.

I do like the idea of moving my arm through an object as a test, but I forsee lots of objects falling and breaking with that one. LOL

Adrienne

Adrienne,

I don't believe that reading is a reliable RC (others will disagree with me I sure). I try to design my RCs to give me instant feedback BEFORE I am lucid. This is not the case for the reading test. For example, if I'm happily dreaming along I can instantly notice that my location is strange or that I'm with friends that I haven't seen in 10 years and I don't have to remember to do anything special. I have had many dreams where I have read something quite normally without anything strange happening. It would take an extra effort to look back and reread it. In other words, I would already have to have a strong suspicion that I was in a dream. If, for whatever reason, I suspect that I'm dreaming I simply try to fly and this removes all doubt without having to do tedious testing.

Thomas

Hi dreamers. I recently dreamed I was walking through a hospital and saw a lady on a strecher with EYES AS BIG AS POOL CUES or ORANGES they made her look like a martian.. I remember looking at her once then twice in disbelief!! I knew somthing was wrong!! There was intrest but my critical awareness did not go far enough! Another example was at a buisy bus station where a guy asked me to change a hundred dollar bill. I did so but after he walked away in that crouded bus station I noticed the bill was fake! I held it up in front of my eyes very close inches from my face and stared at the bill . It was in color very clear I examined every letter and number and I was still sure it was fake! I found him and he apoligised and gave me another bill after he disapeared I found it was also fake!!! Has anyone ever talked to a dream person who was talking normaly with clear words and then their next answer was a jumble of meaningles sounds and noises!! That should have shocked me into instant lucidity! But not that time..I know Im getting closer to lucidity through dream cues.. But can anyone tell me what is the easest and best exercise to prime critical awareness before sleep? Would apreciate any new ideas..Thanks ..tom

Tom, I was advised to avoid any negative thinking about my not recognizing dreamsigns, but rather to say to myself "The next time I see _______, I will remember to do a reality check." You fill in the blank with your dreamsign. Dreamsigns tend to recur, so this kind of training makes good sense. You could repeat or write these statements at bedtime, perhaps.

Paul

Hi Paul.. Thanks for your reply. The way you explain about writing down dream sighns sounds right.But I thought a dreamer could respond to a wide range of dream sighns especialy if they are something imposable in wakeing reality..To just remember one dream sighn sounds fine but there are so many strange things hapining in dreams I see them as multable chances to become lucid..In the book [the world of lucid dreaming] they say most peoples ability to become [criticly aware during a dream is usualy asleep! I just need a way to wake mine up..Im trying to change my quotes before bed.Like something more direct like [AM I DREAMING?] instead of longer more complicated quotes like [the next time I dream I will remember my dreams and become criticly aware]] answer any time tom..

Well, Tom, that's certainly the challenge, isn't it, that waking up critical awareness? That's why we're encouraged to do reality tests during the day, I suppose. I have never found giving myself bedtime directives or affirmations to be particularly helpful in getting me lucid during the dreams that follow. If you find a foolproof incantation, let me know. I have never had much success ever recognizing dreamsigns, either, because I have never really done the homework required. I focus mainly on having WILDs. It's always been relatively easy for me to fall asleep into REM, while staying somewhat conscious and thereby maintaining my intention to become lucid.

Hi Paul.. I have had some goood results in telling my self just before sleep [[I will remember my dreams]] over and over It was a little like auto sugestion.I do RT every day.I use a wind up one hour kitchen timer in my pocket and also watch for dream like scenes in waking reality.. Im in colorado now but last [jan feb march] I was in southern arizona and this method worked pretty good I was remembering long dream stories.. And I must admit that being able to remember [dream recal] your dreams is quite exciting with the many vivid dreams Ive had! Even if I never master lucid dreaming Ill always enjoy experiancing my dream life! I did once get lucid a month ago and experianced an OBE it was short but amazing! What got me lucid then was a dream sighn a [floresent green fox] who looked at me laughed and ran away.. Lucidity is a little like that fox its close but always hiding..Well Ill keep hunting.. cool dreams.. Tom..

Tom, you're right about that affirmation. I can definitely increase my dream recall by telling myself to at bedtime.

What I can't seem to do successfully is use simple bedtime affirmations to set prospective memory for dreamsign recognition, or just to become lucid in a normal dream. This has never really increased my lucidity quotient. If I said at bedtime, "When I see my father tonight (who is deceased), I will remember to do a reality test", without having done any other work on this dreamsign, it doesn't work.

The MILD technique, I think, puts more oomph into dreamsign recognition, as do the specific exercises for prospective memory strengthening that Dr. Laberge teaches.

Please tell me about the OBE during a lucid dream. What exactly happened?

Paul

Ok Paul about the OBE.. I remember being in a wooded area. Very vivid suroundings green leaves the feel of my feet walking down the trail in the woods dust in the air sunshine It was summer time then all of a sudden I saw this green bush with a tunnel going in to it. I stoped to look inside the tunnel and I saw a [floresent green fox] looking straight at me with a mischevious smile. He then laughed and went deeper into the bush! I dont know why but I followed him into the bush untill the tunnel got too small.. I then backed out of the tunnel and heard a distant voice say.. I MUST BE DREAMING! At the same time I heard the voice a man was aproaching the bush with some food for the creature. Then instantly the dream scene changes I was in a 200 year old mansion with with a large amount of people in it. I could hear them laughing and talking like a big party was going on..I found my self in a private guest room I noticed the walls were cracked and very old. I layed down on a bed but got up because my door was ajar to close it. I layed back down and then I saw images of city buildings and in the center of my field of vision was a small dot..Then I heard a strange voice direct me to concentrate on that dot..Then I felt a pressure in the center of my forehead as I concentrated and felt my body rising up in the air very quickly! and I was hearing a noise like a jet engine.I was seeing city buildings as I rose I remember exclaiming IM FREE! IM FREE! I felt like a leaf in the wind.. I was not at all afraid I was enjoying the seperation from my sleeping body! I could still see the city buildings but little jaged lines started to apear in the image and started to look like a jig saw puzzel. The image was fragmenting then I woke up. I must have gotten too excited and lost lucidity? I think what made me notice the fox was that very abnormal color [[floresent green]] !! Well thats the experiance I had that morning early..Its possable that when I got up to close the door in that mansion room I was experiancing a false awakening???? Now I think of it something keeps telling me that a very old woman materialized in that room. She looked like a gypsy.??where did she come from????? dreams are sometimes strange. Its getting late ..cool dreams! tom..

Tom, other than the feeling of rising, what made you believe that you were out-of-body, rather than still in your lucid dream with your dream body rising off the bed? At that point did you no longer believe you were dreaming, in other words, were you no longer lucid? I'm really interested.

Paul

Ok Paul that question is a good one! I know many people believe that many obe s are just lucid dreams. That is a good theory! But what I experianced as I was rising upward was actualy was the physical release gravity from my sleeping body.. Also I rose very sudenly and fast.I heard the clasic roaring sound that most people report with this kind of experiance.. I did not think about rising or have any warning! The experiance was a total suprise to me..I did not try to make this happen! An OBE happened one other time many years ago.. It feels way more physical than a dream lucid or not.. And now that I think more about this I remember that as I went up I felt like there was a force pulling me up and the feeling of dementional seperation and the physical movement of time..Dreams lucid or vivid happen much more often than obe s..! I would say there must be a diferance experiancing OBE s verses dreams.. Just my opinion.. cool dreams! Tom..

It feels way more physical than a dream lucid or not.

Since this section is titled "The Critical Question," I'd like to ask one (that has probably been asked before; at the risk of being redundant, I didn't search all OBE-related history for it). Perhaps it should be asked elsewhere, since it is not about the critical question, but it is partially in response to the recent dialog:

If one could leave their body--I'll leave the metaphysics at that for now--then why would they continue to experience physical sensations similar to or the same as those experienced while in their body?

Take sight for example, thinking of something such as, "I was floating above my body, looking down on it in bed" (not quoting anyone here; it just seems to be common OBE imagery). Humans see things the way we do because of how our eyes are designed: a limited (but colorful!) range of the light spectrum, limited horizontal and vertical fields, spatial depth, etc. I.e., our eyes filter in a subset of all the information contained in our environment (our other senses filter other subsets). (Also, ocular perception is not from the eyes alone; our brains interpret and contextualize the data we filter in.) If we could suddenly be without (i.e., outside of) our eyes (and brains), why would we see things the way we do with/in our eyes? What would do the seeing?

If a fly--which has compound eyes--were to have an OBE, would it still see everything in grayscale mosaic? (Not to mention the whole flying thing probably wouldn't be as novel as for us.)

Not being a skeptic. Just some things I wonder while I'm thinking about this stuff.

Joshua

Joshua:

I would have to believe that, were we to aspire to be the trans-dimensional creatures that OBE's imply, the way that we "see" in the new realms would have to be technically different. However, the way we "perceive" would have to be similar, or else we would have no chance of understanding what is going on. For instance, when your ethereal self is floating above the bed, it obviously isn't using corporeal eyes to do the looking down, but your mind interprets whatever sensory apparatus it does use as "looking" because that is all it is currently equipped to do.

I would imagine that hard-core OBE'ers would respond to that by saying that everyone experiences OBE's all the time, and that they just haven't developed a way, accidentally or on purpose, to translate the experience into images heir mind can perceive. They would also certainly agree that a fly would perceive everything in grayscale mosaic, but it would have had to have done that translation, which makes for a pretty bright fly!

Tom:

Is there any chance that what you experienced WAS a dream, fulfilling your expectations of exactly what an OBE should feel like? I don't mean your intentions, since you didn't plan on having an OBE, but rather that your mind provided what you believed an OBE would feel like, based upon your knowledge of the subject? Since your mind can provide extremely accurate renditions of pretty much any physical sensation, why couldn't it do the same for an expected sensation?

Best of Dreams,

Peter

Tom, thanks for answering. Before I ever had a lucid dream that I recognized as such I had many "OBE" experiences that were absolutely classic. I think I logged about 24 in one year. I experienced vibrations, roaring, etc. Sometimes I just floated up, other times I employed a "roll out of your body" technique I had learned from my OBE reading, but I always ended up standing in my bedroom with my body snoring away in bed. I usually then flew out the window or went through the doorway, and had some pretty cool adventures.

The certainty that I was in fact separated from my body was total. The sense of presence as a disembodied spirit was remarkable. I never asked the critical question, "Could I be dreaming?" simply because I knew that I wasn't. If I were dreaming, who was that sleeping in bed? Besides, after it was over I could say that dreaming just didn't feel like this had felt.

I've learned that subjectivity is not to be trusted!

So, after long forum discussions about this and a few lucid dreams of both the DILD and WILD type I realized they were, at least for me, the same phenomenon as the WILD. The "me" in bed is a dream me, and the sense of presence comes from having slipped into REM from a more or less conscious state. There's a continuum of consciousness in WILDs that makes it a bit harder to believe one is asleep and dreaming, but I am convinced these are LD's. The point with regards to this thread is that in my WILDs I no longer have to ask the question, "Am I dreaming?" (or, am I OBE?)because I get there intentionally. I can tell when conditions are right for slipping into a dream from the waking state, vibrations and all, and I set my purpose and wait for the dream scene to appear. Usually, it does just that, and I'm again standing in my BR, etc.

Paul

Peter,

I see your points. [smile]

Not sure how far I can go with this, but, I think somewhere at the heart of my question is the degree to which the technical determines our perception. For the sake of discussion, I'll maintain some idea of ethereality (it was not much in my thoughts, before)...

If our "seeing" apparatus on the ethereal plane is technically different than our eyes here on the physical plane, then it stands to reason they do not filter the same information. However, by comparison, a fly "sees" even though they filter light energy differently (i.e., in a different formation) than we do. Since they're still reacting to light energy (c.f., sound waves, etc.), we can say a fly "sees" something, a human "sees" something; likewise, we can say our physical selves see something, our ethereal selves see something (as long as the input is adequately analogous; c.f. how we "see" a concept or an idea). (Perhaps there is a better analogy; I'm just running with the balls already in play.)

If I see a strawberry, I know it's a strawberry. If I smell-taste it, I know it's a strawberry. If I feel it around in my hand, I probably can figure out it's a strawberry. I probably cannot hear it's a strawberry, but someone can tell me it's a strawberry, and without any other sensory inputs at that time, I have a pretty good idea of what they mean. All of these sensations may involve the same strawberry, but the sensations are fundamentally different, and I am likely to use a different set of words to describe each (note exceptions such as Kandinsky's color theory, which relates colors, sounds, emotional, and semi-tactile sensations).

If I experience the strawberry through a different apparatus--say, a fly's eyes--I probably do not know it's a strawberry until I have associated it somehow with strawberry-ness. In any case, I'm not sure I would describe the strawberry in the same terms as I would while/after seeing it through my own eyes. E.g., I might use the visual words light and dark, but I would not use the word red. If I saw the strawberry through fly-eyes, and I knew it was a strawberry, would my mind necessarily translate the light-dark images into red ones? I could make the association, and then explain to others with human eyes that what I'm seeing in light-dark is red to them, and a strawberry to both, but I don't see why my mind would perceive them the same, not distinguish between the two sets of same-yet-different sensations.

A different tack: If physical eyes detect physical light, then do ethereal "eyes" detect physical light? If so, by what reason. If not, then what do they perceive? Ethereal light? If so, then, if my ethereal body is sitting in a room with my physical body, how does it "see" my physical body? The physical light reflecting off my physical body is not perceptible to my ethereal eyes, and my ethereal body is no longer lying in bed to reflect ethereal light (of course, it can if we alter some traditional notions of space and time, but such alterations should still stand to reason at some level, just as, say, quantum theory is reasonable regardless of how counterintuitive it seems).

I guess I would expect to see in a report of a legitimate OBE something more like, "I something-like-saw something that something-like-looked like my body," than a, "I saw my body." The latter implies a chain of events that still seems to me to be missing some links. I admit that could be my own shortsightedness.

Here's to more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy.

Joshua

"Matter is spirit named."--Alan Watts

Joshua:

You know what the best thing about this discussion is? Since it's all conjecture, anything we say is right! Pretty cool!

I agree that the "seeing" apparatus our ethereal forms might employ would filter different information than our physical eyes. Hell, OBE sight would probably bypass light altogether and filter completely different aspects of reality, like auras, astral signposts, and input from multiple dimensions for which descriptive words do not exist. When your astral body sees that strawberry, it probably sees something entirely different -- the energy signatures of an object at once dead yet also the source of new life, but relegated to be consumed rather than produce must indeed be fascinating. But a human mind wouldn't understand any of those signals, so the astute astral body has the good sense (or bad sense, since the act invites discovery) to translate what it sees into an information stream its human mind can fathom.

I liked your "different tack," because it makes an excellent point that might truly relegate OBE reports to dreams or wishful thinking. I can accept the ethereal body "seeing" its body and then translating, per the above, to its human mind what it perceives. I would even argue that there would be an "ethereal residue" left in or around the body to tag, perhaps, the body so the ethereal body knows where to return its human mind. No, what your different tack did was lead me to ask myself: why would it bother?

Think about it. The miracle of miracles occurs, and a human mind is united in perceptual understanding with its ethereal counterpart, its spiritual essence, perhaps its very soul! That ethereal counterpart suddenly has the opportunity to show its corporeal partner all the trans-dimensional wonders of its world -- new universes of energy, joy, fear, adventure, and wonders for which there are no words! It might only have a few seconds to do this -- these links are quite tenuous. So what does it do, by so many reports? It chooses to float above its body for a minute, showing the human mind nothing but himself? Then, if things go really well, they tour the human's house together, or maybe his neighborhood? Please.

I suppose our ethereal selves might just be this pedestrian, but doesn't it make more sense to assume that these events are merely dreams? This explanation might just be a lazy swipe of Occam's Razor, but it also draws from a far more reasonable pool of logic -- at least until the quantum physics guys get their superstrings to tie together.

Best of dreams,

Peter

Good points all, Peter. I suppose I was looking around for a reason why my impression of OBEs leaves me with a something's-missing feeling, and not the same feeling as knowing the cream filling's there but I just can't get my mouth around it. It's similar to the feeling I get when I watch a sci-fi film and all the aliens speak English, or appear human, or whatever. Like it isn't strange enough to be truth--of course it's possible, and you could argue it either way, but it just doesn't jibe with something inside.

But, then, I've had many moments of feeling like a character in Murakami novel, so I don't exactly expect everything to be reasonable, either.

Thanks for entertaining my thoughts.

Joshua

Joshua:

No problem, and perhaps that "something's missing" feeling is an explanation in itself.

Peter