Hi,

I couldn't decide where is suitable to ask this question in the forum. I hope this will be the right place. Some of you know I am new in searching about dreams. A topic or text I read leads another and I get confused sometimes. For example a few days ago when I read a text I heard about "indigo children" for the first time in my life and had to read hundreds of pages more to understand it.

I afraid because of my English I may not express my question in a right way so I will ask it in different ways.

-Can a dream be both lucid and precognative?

-Can a part of my lucid dream be precognative?

-When I was having a lucid dream can I also see/hear something procognative?

I thought that I can be lucid in my precognative dreams or I can have different dream types (lucid, clairvayant, psi etc) in one dream. Most of my dreams were like that. But now I am thinking that there must be something wrong here. Either I didn't understand anything from all those I read or my dreams were not what I named. When I have lucid dreams I usually make interpretations to myself as precognativity. Like; "I am having this dream because of this... or ....in this dream this means this..." And they usually cametrue later as I interpreated/ predicted to myself in my dream.

But a friends commend about the dream I had last night made me very confused. During the dream till the end I was lucid. Changed events, places, made quesses etc. While enjoying my lucidity, the last thing I remember was a sound whispering to my ear; "Wait, wait and see. Tomorrow. May be before than tomarrow may be after tomarrow. They won't give up."

The woice was speaking about the police forces I was making fun.

I had many similar dreams in the past. Does this means I was't lucid in all those many dreams I thought I was? (I was sure about my lucidity and they all cametrue in the past)

Waiting for your views and knowledge. Thanks.

Ilkin

Dear Ilkin,

I am not exactly sure of your questions, but I will try to say some things that might help.

1. A lucid dream means only that you know it is a dream. To know it is a dream means to know the event is a mental construct and not waking reality... while it is happening, and not later. (Thinking a dream is coming from some kind of outside source actually conflicts with the idea of knowing it is a mental construct).

2. You can have very vivid dreams that are not necessarily lucid dreams.

3. Dreams, both lucid and non-lucid, can have realistic things happen with sound, taste, feel, and smell, not just seeing things. So if you hear something in a dream, this is probably just another part of the dream. This can be very realistic, but it is still just another part of the dream. Dreams are mental events that are caused by the same powers of the brain that give us our experiences while we are awake. So they can seem quite realistic.

4. No one seems to have either proven or disproven conclusively that dreams can be precognitive. There is certainly anecdotal evidence for it, but this is not proof.

5. If someone such as you is interested in precognitive dreams, it makes sense that they will have dreams sometimes that are about precognition and predictions. This seems very likely.

A dream about the future is not necessarily a precognitive dream; in other words, it does not mean you are being given information about the future, just because you have a dream about the future.

Even if the dream is very vivid, this does not necessarily mean it is precognitive. (Even if it comes true, it does not prove it is precognitive, either).

6. The more any idea goes against what we know about the laws of the physical world, the greater the evidence needs to be to actually prove it. The more far-out the claim, the more proof we need to have. People can personally believe whatever they want, but it makes sense to try to use some kind of logic in deciding on beliefs.

7. If you have a strong belief that cannot be proved, such as some dreams being precognitive, this is okay for you, and I am not making you wrong for this. But you should ask yourself sometimes why you believe anything so strongly. And you should also not be surprised when other people do not accept the belief. I would give the advice to be more careful about what you observe and believe, and why you believe it. Even if you believe in precognition in dreams, my advice would be to still be critical, one dream at a time.

Yes, dreams can seem to be many things. I suspect vivid dreams explain out-of-body experiences and alien abduction experiences. Can you see how important it is to not be confused by a dream?

Dreams can be vivid, and they can confuse us sometimes. But the whole point of lucidity is to learn to recognize when we are dreaming, and get better about really knowing what's going on.

Maybe some dreams are psi or precognitive, and I'm not saying this is impossible. But we do know this: dreams happen in your brain. This fundamental idea should lie at the root of our thoughts on the subject. The first thing anyone should think about when they think about a dream is, to see it first as a mental event.

Finally: This Forum explores the type of dreaming known as lucid dreaming. Although we necessarily discuss lucid dreaming as it relates to many other types of dreams, the focus is on dreams that we know are dreams. Just so everyone knows this, extended discussions of things like precognitive dreams-- without being discussed as how it relates to lucidity-- is better suited for exploration on other forums. Likewise, this would be true of lengthy discussions of non-lucid dream content, etc.

I personally find dreams even more fascinating and enjoyable when I consider them at least initially as the amazing mental constructs they are.

Hopefully these ideas will help a little. It will be great if you are encouraged to explore your dreams with a critical attitude. By critical, I do not mean "disapproving". I mean, using careful thought.

Actually, you may find dreams even more interesting this way. I know I do, anyway. Good luck and best wishes in exploring your dreams.

Sincerely, Reverie

Dearest Ilkin,

I agree that this question may best be explored in a different forum (i.e. asd-PsiDreams), for a different reason: because the people there have sufficient personal experience with precognitive dreams that the discussion doesn't get bogged down in questioning whether precognition exists!

I have definitely had dreams that were both lucid and precognitive. Possibly others in the asd-psi forum have, too. We should be able to skip the skepticism detour and discuss the very interesting and potentially useful phenomenon of knowing that we are dreaming, and at the same time, reflecting on the possibility that the dream might be a precognitive one.

I'm puzzled by why you think the dream you describe may not have been lucid. Please explain in asd-psi. See you there.

Meanwhile folks in this forum who are interested in more discussion of precognitive lucidity (and background on Ilkin's extensive lucid and psi experience) may enjoy reading the thread on "precognition, remote viewing, space and time" under "Research, Theory and LI Experiments."

Joy

Joy!

It's wonderful to see you posting again, though your presence back in the forum seems tentative. That's a shame, because you've contributed so much to this forum, and aided the lucid dreaming explorations of so many participants.

I suppose it is comforting to chat in rooms comprised of like-minded participants, but I think that a little honest skepticism, and even the occasional sincere disagreement, will take two minds quite a bit further than can mutual admiration. One of the encouraging aspects of the LI forum is that it focuses on lucid dreams from a scientific (aka: potentially provable) viewpoint, with the occasional welcome lapse into mysticism and/or just plain fun stuff. That focus keeps us on the subject of developing our understanding of, and proficiency for, lucid dreaming. That "skepticism detour" that Reverie made above was a reflection of a real strength of this forum: its sincerity and interest in truths that we all can share. Without such a detour, Ilkin's question cannot be honestly answered ' unless it is enough to tell a person only what they wish to hear.

At any rate, I for one deeply hope that you continue to visit this forum, and join in discussions of lucid dreaming.

In all cases, the best of dreams to you,

Peter

Joy, Ilkin, and others:

I was very careful to phrase my post so as to not categorically preclude the possibility of precognitive dreams. This was sincere, not merely a prudent debate tactic. And please note that although my opinions are strong, they are not personal in nature.

The boundaries of lucid dreaming as a topic are gray and subjective sometimes, so I can accept that its not always easy to decide what's relevant to this Forum. I always hope we can focus specifically on the rich and important topic that beckoned us here: learning to know while dreaming that we're experiencing a mental construct. But this is not the main reason for my post.

While this subject is being discussed, I have some concerns perhaps even more urgent than the circular issue of Forum relevancy.

Rather than it spoiling all the fun, I see skepticism and observational stringency as an opportunity to participate in one of the triumphs of humankind, that is, the scientific method as a search for truth.

When lucid dreaming was first proposed as being a genuine phenomenon not so very long ago, it was greeted with doubt. This is because it seemed to run counter to the way we believed things worked. But when careful science was applied to the challenge, sufficient proof was ultimately obtained. This exciting development necessitated a realignment in thinking. Our working truths had to be redefined in light of startling new scientific evidence.

What if Stephen had never embarked on the scientific method in his work? What if he had instead merely chosen to not get "bogged down" in taking seriously the question of whether it existed? Indeed, he felt sincerely from personal experience that it did exist, and it thus remained to be shown clearly to others. Had he not done so with such care and stringency, lucid dreaming might have remained a marginal and idiosyncratic belief with no more credibility than astrology or palm-reading.

I'm not saying any of you needs to be doing the actual research on precognition or you can't come to the party. I am saying that even with its relevancy to LD aside, I would be remiss if I didn't encourage careful thinking. And naturally, any such unproven beliefs should expect to get their feathers ruffled, and not automatically be given a chair. This seems especially important when the Forum topic is lucid dreaming; lucidity itself implies the necessity of making careful state distinctions.

Think of what might be gained if we all try to apply scrutiny to any dream event, especially those that seem out of the bounds of everyday physics.

Assuming you and Ilkin and others are interested in promoting an effective argument for the existence of psi or precognitive lucid dreams, applying ongoing stringent observations and evaluations to these dreams can only help your chances of success at attaining credibility. Anything less and you unintentionally cheat not only yourselves, but the rest of us.

Automatically believing in every dream that seems precognitive, which is what appears to be going on here, does not serve the search for truth. Maybe this is important to you, or maybe it is not; this is your choice.

But here, we are hopefully engaged in an ongoing search for truth. Both as a moderator here and personally, I encourage this vital and adventurous process.

Dare to shine a hard and brilliant light. Under such glare, only that which is vaporous disappears.

lux vincit omnia,

Reverie

Hmm, apparently I will have to learn Latin as well as Russian.

Unless of course this is a dream, in which case multilingual skills will become mine now!

Its not working...

Hi,

I am neither interested in promoting an effective argument for existance of psi, precognative or any other kind of lucid dreams, nor intentionally or untintentionally cheat anybody. I belive everybody is intelligent enough not to be effected or cheated by others. (As I am) And I don't think there can be anybody with such intentions here too. I don't even take your words serious for myself.

I am only researching (trying to understand scientificily) about my dreams as many people knows.I asked this question here because I thought, beeing specialized on lucidity, there may be past scientific researches about the topic in LI and you can be kind enough to give me knowledge to enlighten me in my sincere research.

To your knowledge; I am not confused about my dreams a little bit. I have them all my life and saw their results all my life. I don't have to prove anything to anybody. I just think I have to understand their scientific explinations. And just get confused on some texts and researches I read.

As an institude about lucidity, I thought this must be one of the most reliable places I can get information. But unlike Keelin and others, this is the second time you made me regretfull taking part, asking questions here.

I am sure, even if I have asked with a personal mail to anybody (Keelin, Stephen, etc whomever) I would get a reply wich will be very open, simple and encouraging my eagerness in my research.

You go on your search for truth as a moderator and personally. I wish you can find it sometime as a moderator and personally and learn to shine not shadow on the ones who also searchs it but for general humanity experiences (not as a moderator or personally like you).

PS. Keelin; You were the one who accepted me to the forum, you can logout me now because I don't think I deserve a third regret by getting another such reply. I am not a cheater, neither liar nor wanted to begin an argument. There are many more places where I can get knowledge without such a behaviour, where they have real respect to peoples questions.

It was nice to know the others, you whom I learned very much. I know we will meet other places where this "moderator" not exists.

With my regards and love to the LI and other real moderators.

Ilkin

Ilkin:

I think something may have been lost in translation here.

Nobody claimed that you cheated or lied, or even that your beliefs and experiences are invalid. And, since you basically asked but one question, you are certainly not starting an argument.

Reverie may have been trying, very carefully, to tell you why we react as we do when difficult subjects like precognition are mentioned.

Peter

Language is always difficult. I think there is a language problem here, Ilkin.

By "cheat" I merely meant "deprive". The word usage was unfortunate, perhaps, but in English it has more than one meaning. "Deprive" is very, very different than, I think, what you concluded I meant from that part of my honest post.

I have no ego about any of this. I am just trying to help you and everyone the best way I can. We are all here to both learn and share. Both of my posts were offered in that spirit. I am sorry you seem to be so offended, and apparently experienced this as a personal attack. It was not personal.

B. Giguere

So Brenda what does, 'lux vincit omnia' mean then?

Lux vincit omnia = Light conquers all things

Hi, Robert- I sent you a note privately yesterday in response to your inquiry, but you may not have gotten it yet. It was just my playful way of saying "light conquers everything"... a variation on "amor vincit omnia". It wasn't intended to be vague- just poetic. :-)

In larger matters here, I hope it's obvious to everyone that my goal is always for the light of awareness to shine, both in Forum-land and within my own humble mind and heart. My posts (whether they fully succeed or not) are always careful and sincere attempts to carry out this ethic.

best wishes one and all, B. Giguere aka Reverie

Hi Brenda and Mr Admin,

Thanks for the translation.

As I've repeated many times in the related thread I referenced, I am myself a scientist and I applaud skepticism. I think it's excellent that those of you who don't experience precognitive dreams approach the possibility of their existence in any way you like. Meanwhile, for those of us who do...

Well, it's a lot like trying to have a conversation about the use of color in paintings, and being interrupted by people who are colorblind. Or trying to discuss musical harmonies and being interrupted by people who are tone-deaf. With no disrespect whatsoever for colorblind or tone-deaf people we would politely excuse ourselves and continue the discussion elsewhere. That's all.

Love& Joy

Hi, Joy

Fine to read your lines again here.

I just thought the same:

Why should we sceptic searchers let us hinder?

It is sad for this forum not being able to embrace the psi thing as an application of lucid dreaming. We had experiments once. But I can't say there was any enforcing feedback from the moderators.

Of course it is easy to superimpose the own limitations on others. And it is not easy to stay aware and lucid and prevent that. I understand that from my own history, from my own narrow mind, I time and again.

This has once been a forum where a scientific argument could be made. Now it seems nobody wants to look at any proof. We had more scientific AND interesting AND controversial AND open discussion here in the past, if anyone wants to look back the last three years (that I've been here). Now this has become an exchange merely opinions, that is my impression.

The discussion on psi related things certainly lacks in quality.

Or could you name your resources and more differentiated comment on psi research, Reverie? I can do that, and did that.

Don't get angry, get lucid ...

Ralf

P.S. Like Ilkin, I feel disregarded, I must say. I think, it is time to wake up...

Thats a neat analogy Joy.

However individuals who dont experience precognitive dreams can presumably judge when one has accured because the individual who's had one will be able to accuratley predict the future.

Generalisations along the lines of I had a negative dream therefore 'something terrible will happen around the middle of Febuary' when we live in such a large world with so many inherent possibilties where something terrible or indeed positive is always happening, definatley dont fit into my understanding of the above principle.

Is it really precognitive to say, I dreamt I ate a donut and guess what I did, or I dreamt I visited the TLI site and guess what I did?

It might be time now for us all to step back, take a deep breath, and really think about what is being, and has been, discussed on this forum. I think the exercise would be worth the exceptional effort it might require of some, because both the forum and its participants provide a unique insight into lucid dreaming that I for one don't want to see abandoned.

What we seem to have here is a disagreement on how to discuss lucid dreaming. Not what we're discussing, and not (as I thought before) where some want to take it, but HOW we're talking about it.

I believe that the primary focus of this forum is bettering the craft of lucid dreaming, and perhaps helping to work it into the mainstream of human experience. I can see no reason why a fundamental disagreement on the reality of a subject that exists outside this site's apparent parameters should jeopardize that goal.

Perhaps, in retrospect, it would have been best if the "Synchronicity, Precognition, Remote Viewing, Space and Time" thread never existed. Though I personally value discussion about all of these topics they can, and apparently did, lead to a belief in some that this forum was supporting as truth some ideas that ranged beyond its basic assumptions.

This forum is about lucid dreaming. Yes, it does occasionally discuss aspects of life that lucid dreaming can touch, but it is not about them. It is also about the sincere investigation of lucid dreaming, and if that investigation is not founded in facts, what value does it have? If anything, Ralph, we are attempting to step away from allowing opinion to reign, and not the opposite. When opinions reign, everybody is right, regardless of the veracity of their thoughts. It seems that the moderators only draw fire when they mention that something might not be true because it has yet to be proven.

Lucid dreaming is still a subject that is alien to most of the people on this planet. The LI wants to change that by making lucid dreaming real to as many people as possible. Integral to this is a consistent adherence to verifiable truth. Sure we all might stray in the name of curiosity or fun now and then, but the day the LI forum begins projecting an image of accepting without question ideas that the world sees as unproven and generally unreal is the day that this forum falls into line with the countless other sites filled with acquiescent true believers but bereft of credibility. Lucid dreaming may be a key that will unlock many vaults that currently conceal the nature of consciousness and, yes, psi experiences. But first it has to be accepted as reality, and not as just another fringe category that exists purely anecdotally. That requires credibility and credibility requires skepticism.

I care very deeply about lucid dreaming, and I want others to as well. You guys have all made valuable contributions to the growth of lucid dreaming in people who might never even have thought of it before they read your posts. Please don't trash all that work, and success, because the LI moderators pose unpleasant questions.

Peter

P.S. I sure hope that now we can all get back to discussung lucid dreams, and stop discussing the discssion!

Joy:

If I could just extend your painting analogy a bit further:

Wouldn't the folks discussing color in a painting be very interested in offering a believable explanation of that color to the colorblind? After all, they're just discussing color; the colorblind need to understand it, to have it proven to them (who knows? They might only think they are colorblind!). That is a much deeper challenge that could also teach those who see color a few new things about their own perceptions. Sure, their initial exchange about the use of color might be interrupted, but much more might be learned all around.

And if those who see color dismiss the colorblind, aren't they establishing themselves as a clique of "the informed" who have no use for those who actually need to have color explained to them? I'll grant that that's a popular position in the art world, but is it a place where scientists want to be?

Peter

Dear Forum Friends,

Perhaps we can talk about lucid living for a moment. It seems to me that we've had several opportunities recently to do some reality checking. From this perspective, it appears a rash of over-sensitivity and misinterpretation have crept into our exchanges here. Of course, some of this is bound to happen when we consider our audience. As admitted dreamers, in general, we tend to be a sensitive bunch. And don't we all wish language would do more to bring us together? If I may offer one suggestion, it is to try to apply what we learn from lucid dreaming to our waking lives. That moment of becoming aware can serve us so well here, reminding us that we have options for response beyond the habitual. I'm not saying this is easy. I react out of habit on a daily basis! But there are certainly moments that urgently beg for reflection and clarification, and this seems to be one of them.

Perhaps it would serve us well to have a clear definition of our goals for this forum posted at the top of our discussion board. We might also list urls for other sites that cover topics that would be better addressed elsewhere. If one is looking for discussion or feedback in areas other than lucid dreaming, it only makes sense to visit the forums that support those conversations. Questions about such topics as precognition and esp are bound to make an appearance here on our forum, and they have their value in making us think about how they do or do not relate to lucid dreaming. But what I would like to see in the questions and comments posed is more evidence of a true understanding of what actually defines lucidity.

Back to lucid living... Ralf, my first reaction to reading that you feel "disregarded" was to be quite disheartened, but if I want to practice lucid living (and exercise the awareness of options for response), I will do better to ask for more understanding of what you mean. Is it that you want/expect the moderators here to engage more fully in topics that are presented? If so, I think we need also to define the roles of our moderators more explicitly as well. I, for one, would very much enjoy having more time to devote to responding to questions and comments posted here, but as it is with everyone, there is a balance to be maintained with other aspects of life, family and daywork. Speaking of which, I must return now to daywork...

I sincerely hope these thoughts will help us all move forward.

• Keelin

Dear dreamers,

What are our expectations when we post on and visit the forum? How do we all differ in our conception of what it is for?

I see it as a sort of menomic concentrative tool it (the site) tests awarness, and is a reality test.

That is to say 'it' in and of itself frames all that it contains and gives its contents context, the context of lucidity in sleep in life.

And like the ship that is proof against the storm 'it' is proof against all our flights of fancy.

Our conversations are the barking dogs, 'it' is the caravan.

Is that to vague? what do you fellows think? Peter? Ralf? Joy? Brenda? Ilkin? Keelin? anyone?

Lucid dreams

Rob

Rob:

Yup, that's vague all right, but I think I'll attempt to understand some of what you're saying anyway!

In a sense, this forum is for you sort of a foundation for lucidity exploration, both explicitly (those reality checks), and implicity (by it existence alone, as proof against flights of fancy). If that's what you mean, then that's pretty cool. If it's not, well then, I guess we can chalk up one more post as lost to the commnication problem!

I think I've already made enough noise about what I think the forum is for, so I'll leave it to you all to look at previous posts for my opinions, and save this page a few pixels.

Peter

Thanks Peter,

To be more descriptive; for me, the angle at which participants approach our subject, dreaming lucidly, the manner in which we articulate our interest and the way that our would be specializations manifest themselves, is secondary to the fact that we are all endeavouring to do it here, at the "online learning lucid dreamin" school'.

I see it as a painting that has value because of its amazingly ornate frame and the possibility that the artist's scribbles can be painted over and re-worked again and again. The container being more valuable than the content if you like.

Rob

Hello, Dreamers.

With the person now gone whose posts formed the basis for my careful remarks here, any further posts on my part would be unfair to her and unfair to the group.

Furthermore I think a careful re-reading by my dear friends here of all of my posts, including those earlier in time when the discussion first began, makes my thesis fairly clear, should anyone be so interested.

No one has been disregarded; on the contrary, I have dedicated many long hours of late to the pondering of others" views, and the formulation of my thoughts about those views, and have attempted to share in a cautious-- and polite-- manner.

I personally am going to spend my weekend seeking the warm sun, away from computers and telephones, with nothing more technologically advanced within arm's reach than a pen and a dream journal. You guys will probably hear from me next week on some other thread, hopefully with a wonderful lucid adventure or two to share. I look forward to reading some of yours.

All warm wishes as always, B. Giguere aka Reverie

Rob:

Excellent point of view, and right on the money, if I do say so -- thanks!

Brenda:

I hope your weekend was excellent and restful. One qustion, though: what is this "warm sun" you seek? Up here in the northeast U.S., that is still just a metaphorical concept!

And the best of dreams to all,

Peter

Dear fellow oneironauts!

Reverie, I hope you had a fine and sunny weekend!

I'll join you all in settling this discussion, but for different reasons. So at least we can agree to disagree ;)

But in one thing we all agree:

Tons of lucids for everyone!

Ralf

Cake

i wanted one life you wanted another we couldn't have our cake so we ate eachother

Roger McGough

Just dropped in to amend my analogy: while colorblindness and tonedeafness are genetic deficiencies in perception, everyone has "intuition" to some degree and can develop it into what some call "psi" abilities. I encourage all with an interest to overcome societal biases and give it a try.

Anyone who does take the time to read through the archives of the thread "Synchronicity, precognition, remote viewing, space and time" will find that I've already written reams and reams on the topic for this forum, addressing questions raised since my last post. Go, review those archives, and never feel that I would "dismiss" you! You are more than welcome to email me if you would like to discuss advanced applications of lucidity in psi dreams (vs. discuss whether or how they should be discussed).

Love& Joy

After some thought on if and how to say this, I'm back with one last note of encouragement. For those who don't have time to peruse those archives, this sums up what I've tried to say:

To quote Reverie, "Dare to shine a hard and brilliant light. Under such glare, only that which is vaporous disappears."

Exactly!

With an IQ score of 170, with a science degree awarded "with High Distinction" (for "A" grades in all courses, from philosophy to physics), I dare to say that the light I dare to shine is harder and more brilliant than average. I hope those with an interest in psi phenomena will be encouraged to know that mine do not evaporate. I keep Occam's razor well-honed and am left with a wealth of experiences for which the most parsimonious explanation is that I've gained information across "time" or "distance." The theories of modern physics may well be correct in asserting that time and space are illusions fostered by the habitual perceptual biases of the human mind.

Stephen LaBerge's sometimes-colleague Alan Wallace writes eloquently that a rigorously-trained mind is the ultimate tool for exploring its own potential. Lucid dreaming is part of the mind training regime that Wallace prescribes. My telepathic and precognitive dreams have increased since I began achieving an average of one lucid dream per night. It's your mind - go ahead - brighten it up by a few candlepower and then see what you perceive.

Okay -

good luck -

goodbye -

Joy

Dear Joy and Ilkin, I personally think you both should reconsider. Try to forget intended or unintended offenses (you remember I apparently mistook you once in your bio-photograph for being a bearded person?)and stay with this Forum to enrich those in the Forum who want to be enriched. I am sure it would be to our mutual benifit. I am sorry to see that within such an exciting field of LD-related perceptions, things can come to such an unnecessary breakingpoint. Edwin.

Joy:

Best of luck in all of your explorations! And remember, should you ever choose to visit me in a dream, I will welcome you with an open mind and heart...

Peter