I have a comment about the obe/lucid dream thing. Everyone seems so hooked on the labeling of the experience. If you were concious and aware during a dream, having control from begining to end, fully aware that you had fallen asleep conciously, but woke up and called it an obe because of your personal beliefs, the experience isn't invalidated because of that. Nor does it suddenly become a normal unlucid dream because you called it something else. The labeling process of the experience would be from misinformation, not from the fact that one wasn't aware during the dream. You can't tell someone they werent aware and concious in a dream because they did not label it to your pattern of thinking! If I woke up and decided that all my lucid dreams were obes and became totaly spiritual my lucid dreams wouldn't suddenly not be lucid dreams because I decided to label them different. For example: Joe Blow Smith has a lucid dream. It is a totally random event in his life it has never happened before. He knows hes dreaming but doesnt state it or think about it during his experience. He makes fully concious decisions in his dream. He is totally aware that he is not in the waking world. When he wakes up he goes to the book store and sees a book on astral travel. He says Ahhh haa! I was out of my body! He had never heard of lucid dreaming. And now he believes all such experiences to be out of body astral travel, due to misinformation. While his beliefs affect his waking perception of the event, they are still dreams in which he is aware. Also, how is it that I didnt have a lucid dream if I didnt think oh this is a dream? I have had many lucid dreams were I just knew without giving it thought, kind of like when it becomes second nature when you do anything repetetively. Just wanted to comment on this I don't really see the distinction that is being made here, awareness is awareness, and beliefs are beliefs. And anyone can have both in any combination that suits their person. Dream Free

Dear Ryan,

It seems to me this important discussion is not so much about labeling an experience as it is about getting the definition of lucidity correctly understood. Perhaps we should take this a step at a time.

Referring to your example, please explain: Exactly how does Joe know he's dreaming if he "doesn't state it or has not thought about it during his experience"? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I'm curious to know more precisely how you are defining his state of awareness (or lack there of).

Clearly, we are all looking to be enlightened here! ;) Keelin

Well, you sure did keep it simple Peter, maybe a little too simple though. I'm not trying to prove anything, I just wish to understand. A few days ago I thought I did, but now I don't and it annoys me. Could you, or anyone else, please point out where in my argumentation I'm making the crucial mistake?

You say that "lucidity is defined as a dreamer's awareness that she is dreaming." Isn't it correct that this awareness is impossible without a high degree of consciousness? And isn't consciousness defined as an ability to experience and interpret the world around us? If I'm correct so far it would mean that a high degree of consciousness is a state in which you see and hear everything around you and also is able to comprehend this information accurately. If this statement is true it would also mean that a high degree on consciousness is impossible without the sensory input combined with the ability to interpret the information. Now we have a chain of definitions that looks like this:

Lucidity - (not possible unless) awareness that one is dreaming - (not possible unless) a high degree of consciousness - (not possible unless) a high sensory input combined with rational interpretation

If you take away, or decrease, the sensory input it will fall back in the chain and reduce the chances of lucidity. You say sensory vividness has absolutely nothing to do with lucidity, this is not compatible with the statements above. So, one or more of them must be wrong. I wonder which one?

It feels like I'm just troubling all of you, but I can't help it. I have an inborn desire to know and understand. If I don't I'm not satisfied...

Okay, I'm sensing that this horse is dead, but I'm going to swing the crop a couple more times anyway"

Paul:

I don't doubt for one second that you had the experiences you mention. I never said I did. I also don't doubt that there are uncounted varieties of psychic events available to the human mind. With apologies to Stephen, all unconscious phenomena DO NOT revolve around lucid dreaming.

Because of this, lucid dreaming, like any other facet of our experience, requires a clear definition. And, though it can vary from dream to dream, some conscious awareness that "this is a dream" must be present in order to have a lucid dream. If it's not, then it's not a lucid dream. That doesn't mean the event didn't occur, it just means that it was something outside the realm of lucid dreams. Lucid dreaming is one of those rare categories of consciousness that is very simple to define ' the dreamer must be aware, on some conscious level and during the dream, that they are dreaming. Anything else is, well, something else. This really isn't my opinion, or belief, any more than it can be my opinion that waking-life water is wet.

Ryan:

I was lucid dreaming for a dozen years before I ever even heard the term. I didn't have a name for it, and I didn't care, but I did know that I was aware of myself dreaming. That awareness does not require an official vocalization that "I'm dreaming!' (though that can help). Simply knowing, even without giving it a thought as you say, is enough. I'm not interested in any textbook codification, and I feel that hastily attaching labels can lead to exactly what happened to Joe Blow Smith in the bookstore (by the way, it's important to understand that, regardless how what Joe erroneously termed it, what he experienced was a lucid dream). I am not saying that someone was lucid because they emphatically pronounced in the dream that they were having a lucid dream; I am saying they were lucid ONLY because they were aware they were dreaming at all

Linus:

First, don't worry about troubling us ' these are the kinds of conversations that help us all learn more about lucid dreaming. And that's why we're all here, isn't it?

I do have a problem with your equation, in that a lucid dream does not need the second and third statements present to occur. I'm not sure of the exact definition of consciousness (I think there might be more than one opinion of that out there!), but I would wager that a high degree of it is not necessary to have a lucid dream. Sure, it would help, but awareness of the dream can come without any extra input from the dreamer. As an example of this, I doubt that children who have lucid dreams ever gave much thought or planning to them. And, though I like the rational interpretation aspect, high sensory input is truly not necessary to experience a lucid dream. Indeed, I can confirm from experience that virtually no sensory input is possible. Higher consciousness and enhanced sensory input can certainly be goals for lucid dreamers, but they are not requirements for lucid dreaming. A lucid dream is simply the awareness of the dreamer that he is dreaming. Human awareness, though cosmically awesome when you think about it, is a fairly simple condition. Complication can come from trying too hard to examine that state instead of just working with it.

Everyone (with a special nod to Reverie):

The bottom line is that a lucid dream is simply a dream in which the dreamer is aware that he or she is dreaming. If the dreamer isn't aware in the dream, then it isn't a lucid dream. This statement is not opinion, misinformation, belief, or dogma; it is the foundation of lucid dreaming.

The Best of Dreams, Peter

P.S. Did I mention that a lucid dream occurs when a dreamer becomes aware that he or she is dreaming?

Well, I'm really happy to see some others weighing in on this discussion, and thank you Ryan especially for clearly stating your understanding of this phenomena. I really thought I might be the only one who was dealing with this question.

Everything I'm reading here today makes perfect sense to me.

As I understand it, the term "lucid dream" was coined by a single individual writing anecdotally about his experiences with this phenomenon. It has been adopted by the dream and sleep research community, and currently is defined exactly as stated above. According to this definition, unless one is aware one is dreaming, it is not a lucid dream. That agreed, it is nevertheless true that one can have the identical phenomenologic experience without realizing it is a dream, as Ryan states, and as I myself have experienced.

So, Ryan and others, what do you propose we label our experience? I personally don't like OBE--too many New Age associations. Sub-lucid dreams? Low lucidity dreams? Waking Sleep? Conscious Sleep? Personally, I like the name Sentient Sleep. Any thoughts?

Paul

Wow, thanks everyone for your responses to my inquiry. This discussion has reminded me of a similar issue that I would really like to hear a comment on, the use of spinning to prolong lucidity. I have found that spinning does prolong lucidity, but it leads me to place of very little sensory input, if any. In other words, my sight disappears, my feeling of my dream body fades, and my hearing generally only has a slight buzzing sound or nothing at all. While this is an interesting state, similar to sleep paralysis, I would like to enter other dream worlds from here. However, once here I find it difficult to reestablish sensory associations or "re-create a dream world." Therefore, I was wondering a. if anyone else has this problem b. what they use to get around it

This, perhaps, is why I have been less interested in spinning (versus hand-rubbing, etc.) as a valid lucidity maintaining technique. However, if I had a simple solution, then this technique would become even more effective and powerful.

Thanks all, Marc

Paul:

Just one last little nudge:

If your experience was phenomenologically identical to TLI's definition of a lucid dream, and you've agreed with (or at least acknowledged that someone established) that definition, then wouldn't you have known you were dreaming during that experience? Or rather, if you didn't know it was a dream, then wasn't the phenomenological experience by definition NOT identical to a lucid dream?

Sorry, it had to be asked.

Peter

Marc:

Thank you for instigating this rich conversation thread!

You might look in the Discussion of Secondary Techniques - Prolonging section of the Learning Lucid Dreaming forum for some interesting conversations about spinning, and prolonging in general. I also suggest that you do a keyword search for "spinning" -- you should be able to tap into plenty of previously exchanged wisdom that might help you.

Of course, if anybody has anything to share now with Marc, that is most welcome too!

Peter

Marc, it has been stated here that spinning and hand-rubbing only prolong the dream, while mental reminding prolongs and improves lucidity. You could spin yourself right out of lucidity rather than improving it, if I understand these posts correctly, if you don't remember to remind yourself that you are, in fact, dreaming at the same time.

However, it sounds like you're having the exact opposite effect, that is that you're staying lucid by spinning, but beginning to wake up! How strange!

I wonder, is your spinning more imaginary, or do you actually spread your dream arms out and spin-for-real? It's possible that imaginary spinning in a lucid dream might fixate your attention and lead to awakening. I'm just hypothesizing here.

I recently had an experience at the start of a lucid dream where my vision was fogged, but spinning cleared it. Can't explain that either.

Paul

Peter, it does not necessarily follow from your statements that I would have known I was dreaming, because your first statement there is not precisely what I said. I did not say that the experience is phenomenologically identical to TLI's DEFINITION of a lucid dream, which we all agree requires knowing one is dreaming, but to the SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE of a lucid dream, by which I mean the experience of being fully present in the moment, aware of one's actions, having volition, even experiencing the awe of that unbelievable world. All this is possible, yet one might easily believe he is OOB during such an experience, rather than dreaming, lacking any information to the contrary. You would be quite correct, then, saying it's not a lucid dream by strict definition.

I indeed fully agree that these experiences do NOT fit TLI's definition of dream lucidity. But they do have validity, and I do believe it's essentially the same experience; in other words, a dream.

Paul

Keelin, I also was curious about that part of Ryan's tale. How can you know you're dreaming if you haven't at some level reflected it to yourself?

In my similar experiences, all I can say is I knew I was SLEEPING, but didn't realize I was DREAMING. After all, I had actually seen what I believed to be my slug-like body snoring away in bed, like a good OBEer! Obviously I was sleeping!

Maybe that is what Ryan meant. But perhaps he'll enlighten us both!

Paul

I was simply trying to say that you can be aware in the dream whether or not you believed your experience to be an obe or a lucid dream. Whatever one believes the experience to be does not change the fact that one was aware during the experience. Both imply a world of unlimited perceptual possibilities. Also I know it is possible to be aware in a dream without having given it much thought. When I have a wild I don't say oh look Im dreaming, it is already apparent due to the fact that I have just fallen asleep conciously. Bluntly put, I don't see much difference between the two situations, the important thing to me is the fact that awareness is maintained during the experience.

Ryan, first of all, I agree with everything you are saying about being aware, regardless of what one calls it. Exactly.

Now, if I understand what you're also saying, that when you have a WILD, since you know you have just fallen asleep, you don't need to do any reflecting on your state to know you're in a lucid dream. Is that about right? The reason I ask is that in WILDs now I have to check things out, whereas in the old OBE days (I think I'll call them WIDs, without the L) I never had to check things out because I always experienced the transition sensations, vibrations and so forth, which I no longer have. So, as I rose from my bed, I knew I was in whatever altered state it was, just like you are saying about your WILDs. Strange, huh? Sometimes I think I have actually woken up, until I rip a door off its hinges to get out, or something along those lines.

I am interested in the possibility that you no longer need to do state testing.

Paul

ps: The implication of the facts I just posted is that even though I wasn't lucid as defined, I was actually more aware of being in an altered state then than I am now at the beginning of a WILD, before I've actually tested my state. Bizarre!

I really miss those good, good vibrations!

Paul

LUCID DREAMING DEFINED: "COGNIZANT DREAMING"

Friends, I have the impression that we aren't all reciting our magic INCREASE LUCIDITY NOW! formula before posting. ;)

There is certainly quite a bit of confusion going about around the concept of "lucid dreaming" most of which turns on the ambiguity of the terms "aware" and "awareness". So for example, if one says "lucidity is defined as a dreamer's awareness that she is dreaming" one can be easily misunderstood in a variety of entertaining ways. So, here I go, trying one more time for clarity:

LUCID DREAMING MEANS DREAMING WHILE CORRECTLY THINKING THE THOUGHT 'THIS IS A DREAM'. A better term would be COGNIZANT DREAMING, but I chose to use the much more familiar term 'lucid dreaming' just because it was the term everybody else (e.g., Celia Green, Charles Tart, Patricia Garfield, and Ann Faraday) was using at the time. Some people suggest 'conscious dreaming' but that is confusing because of one of the usages of 'conscious' which would confuse LDing with daydreaming. What is really meant is reflective consciousness of the fact that one is dreaming so 'being aware or knowing that one is dreaming' is too vague. 'Cognizant dreaming' is exactly right. If you feel inclined to disagree, please look it up first.

Speaking of looking it up, as I have suggested more than once before on this forum, anyone interested in the concept and especially the distinction between OBEs and LDs should read "Varieties of Lucid Dreaming Experience" by Stephen LaBerge and Don DeGracia. As it says on the website, this article discusses

The meaning of "lucid dreaming." How do lucid dreams relate to "astral projection" and OBEs? Variations in lucid dream initiation. Perceptual variations. Emotions. Volition and action. Termination of lucid dreams.

It is freely available to all who can read on the web at http://lucidity.com/VOLDE.html

Like Peter I am glad to see the obvious interest this thread is creating. I think we'll get to new insights once we all understand what has already been worked out.

And Marc, I have recently addressed the issue you raise in this very thread. If you are following forum discussions only via email, you may miss what has just been said a week earlier.

MORE LIGHT!

Stephen

Paul:

I think your point has finally driven itself through the upper strata of my skull! Had to happen eventually! You consciously experienced the fabric and wonder of the dream without realizing it was a dream. However (and there's always a "but,' isn't there?), if you weren't cognizant (thank you Stephen ' I was sure you'd administer some clarity eventually) of your dream, then weren't you lacking the core subjective experience of a lucid dream? I promise that's the last time I'll ask that question! Really!

Ryan:

I agree ' "it is possible to be aware in a dream without having given it much thought.' I often have LD's where the awareness that I am dreaming is more understood than pronounced. It's sort of like I don't need to tell myself that this is a dream if I already know it is, so I don't bother (I'm right there, after all!). And yes, no nomentclature is required to validate the experience.

I've also mentioned in other threads that very experienced LD'ers might even have a glimmer of this "awareness" (nascent cognizance, perhaps?)floating around in the back of their minds every time they dream. This awareness needs to be accessed to turn up the clarity and generate actual cognizance, but it might always be present.

Stephen:

Sorry about the whole "awareness" thing ' I actually like to say "conscious participation" is required for a lucid dream (yeah, yeah, that's probably incorrect, too). But, in an effort to avoid the repercussions that I sensed would come from the word "conscious,' I used "awareness" in an answer to Linus many posts ago, and the word lingered. Vagueness and laziness make excellent bedfellows.

Peter

Peter, yes, absolutely I was missing the core experience of full lucidity. I have only experienced that recently. But I had some 25 or so of the other experiences before, so they comprise the bulk of my limited experience, hence my interest in what exactly was going on. Thanks for your interest and comments, and patience.

It's definitely been a case of not knowing what one is missing! The first fully lucid dream I had was a whole new awakening, with new possibilities. Knowing one is dreaming during the dream is the ultimate, no argument there!

One final word. I am reading Stephen's first book, and at one point, talking about becoming cognizant of the dream state, he says something like, and I paraphrase, "I was implicitly aware of my condition before becoming explicitly aware of it." This sounds like something that happens to experienced lucid dreamers, that they can recognize that they're in the dream at some level below the fully conscious level, if I understand the meaning. Maybe this is the same thing Ryan is describing.

Paul

IMPLICIT LUCIDITY?

Let's remember that most of what we know is unconscious, that is, we couldn't accurately and completely describe what exactly it is that we know, and we may not even know that we know it! By definition conscious mental contents are those that can be reported (i.e., described, made explicit, etc.), hence we cannot be lucid in the sense of cognizant without knowing that we know. In other words, being cognizant that we are dreaming requires our thinking a particular explicit thought at the time, i.e., 'this is a dream' or 'I am dreaming' or some equivalent. We can't think such things without noticing that we are doing so! That's what reflective consciousness is all about: mental contents that we are (consciously) aware of as such.

So what did I mean by saying that "I was implicitly aware of my condition before becoming explicitly aware of it"? I mean I was acting on the tacit knowledge that I was asleep and dreaming as when, for example, I think "oh, yes, I need to do that experiment now. Signal lab. Check wings. etc." Admittedly it isn't completely clear what I knew at the time exactly because I didn't spell it out for myself explicitly. 'Implicit lucidity' most frequently takes the form of thinking something like this: "if I walk across the room, I'll become lucid". Then when I do so, I think "Of course! This is a dream! I already seemed to know it, but only now have I spelled it out for myself, and become fully, and explicitly reflectively conscious of the fact."

The apparent paradox of saying that I will know something in a moment that I already seem to know probably arises from the ambiguous and multiple use of "I". Although awkward, it would be more accurate to say: "A part of me knows I'm dreaming and predicts that another part (or even the rest of me) will know it too after a moment or some event occurs."

The test for true lucidity is reflective action. Some people claim to be 'always lucid' in all their dreams. "I always know I'm dreaming" they say. Having several of these implicit dreamers in the lab we have asked them to signal when they know they are dreaming. Typically they don't signal at all. When asked why not, they say "didn't feel like it" or some such rationalization. Whatever their continuous knowledge of dreaming may be, it isn't LUCID DREAMING.

Finally, we all need to take special care in describing our experiences if we wish to be truly lucid in day as well as night life.

CLARITAS ET CARITAS! Stephen

Stephen:

Before I lose the last of my oneironautic stripes, I should do a little clarifying myself:

In no way did I mean to say that accomplished lucid dreamers are always lucid (on any level) when they dream. As you've proven in your lab, that would be absurd. Had it been blessed by clarity, I think my note to Ryan would have been similar to what you were saying about implicit lucidity, but at an emotional, nonverbal (dare I say instinctual without getting too beat up?) level. Of course lucidity only occurs when a dreamer is cognizant that he is dreaming; I was merely stating that an accomplished lucid dreamer may have the sense of the dream, or the ability to consciously acknowledge the dream, more firmly hard-wired into his psyche than might a novice.

Also, I mentioned to Ryan that I don't need to verbally declare my lucidity in order to recognize it. That's literally what I meant ' I do not need to use words like, "Hey, this is a dream,' to consciously acknowledge my state. I don't necessarily need words to "know I know.' Just as I know I'm driving my car too fast without looking at the speedometer or making a verbal announcement and can then make mental plans for getting around the next turn with that unspoken knowledge in place, I can know that I'm dreaming by nonverbally "handling" the signals to which I'm exposed. The explicit thoughts simply don't necessarily arrive in the form of words. Now, if I want to make the most of the lucidity I will work with that knowledge and develop it into a conscious appreciation of the dream. That cognizance still doesn't require any verbal confirmation, though at that point I am usually attaching it anyway, just to enhance the moment of the dream.

I hope this isn't the wrong way to do this; it's been working pretty well for me for about a quarter century now. Also, my apologies to my fellow oneironauts for setting a bad example: don't do what I do! Listen to Stephen et al instead!

Ever Vaguely,

Peter

Paul; I am glad someone understands the point I am getting at.

And yes when I fall asleep consciously there is no need for state testing, I am aware up until the point where I can no longer prolong the experience and awaken. I never have to remind myself I am dreaming in such an instance. I rarely have weird sensations, but find ways to get into hypnagogic imagery and interact, often immediately utilizing some prolonging method or another, usually any physical sensation of movement does the trick. Now if I become aware mid dream it is usually because of state testing, or some bizarre event that is too unbelievable to be real.

Ok I read the article Stephen linked and was particularly interested in the section, variations in thinking. What I gather from this is that the o.b.e. Is a lucid dream but the individual is using a "flawed semantic framework" that causes one to arrive at erroneous conclusions during the dream. So what has happened to me then is that my semantic framework has changed as I have changed my personal beliefs and all my o.b.e experiences are more and more like lucid dreams, making them nearly indistinguishable. I might have what I still explain as an o.b.e. Even though I know that during the dream I am not a spirit, the people I meet aren't real, I am not on an astral plane, and the environment is super malleable to the point of expanding to near infinite perceptual possibilities.

Peter, you've explained it better than I ever could. Sometimes I just know and act accordingly. Is it possible that becoming explicitly aware can happen by the action of being absorbed in other tasks, like prolonging and maintaining the dream? Peter, no apologies needed here man, we all do things different. If something works, it works. Dream free

Hi Mr. LaBerge,

Ever since learning to lucid dream, I have had a curiosity about "constant consciousness', or 24/7 awareness, the Sufis "remembering" Allah with every breath, Buddhist clear light dreams, and so on. In the section on lucid dreaming in the book "Paths Beyond Ego', they talked about one person (I think a TM practitioner) claiming 24/7 awareness, and supposedly in the lab he did signal when he entered the dream state.

So when I read this:

The test for true lucidity is reflective action. Some people claim to be 'always lucid' in all their dreams. "I always know I'm dreaming" they say. Having several of these implicit dreamers in the lab we have asked them to signal when they know they are dreaming. Typically they don't signal at all. When asked why not, they say "didn't feel like it" or some such rationalization. Whatever their continuous knowledge of dreaming may be, it isn't LUCID DREAMING.

I wondered if that meant in all your research you had NEVER run across someone who COULD perform like that so-called "continuous-awareness" person in "Paths Beyond Ego'?

--Jeff

MORE ON LUCIDITY CONCEPT

Ryan, I believe Don DeGracia and I attempted to be neutral about what semanitic interpretation of the OBE/WILD-type exerience was more correct, and just make the point that the state is similar while the interpretation differs. Suppose we one day find that having a dream means visiting a parallel universe. Then lucid dream would mean visiting a parallel universe cognizantly! So we should keep open to how things could change given new knowledge.

And Jeff, I am sorry to say that we haven't YET come across anyone who possesses the skills claimed by Auribindo in the following. My position is still much the same as described in the quote below. "...the power can be developed of going back in memnory from dream to dream, from state to state, till the whole is once more before us. A coherent knowledge of sleep-life, though difficult to achieve or to keep established, is possible." As I wrote in LUCID DREAMING reprinted in PATHS BEYOND EGO, "This is a very exciting possiblity which would'if proven true'have profound implications for the scientific study of sleep, dreaming, and consciousness. As for the proof, it remains only for such a wakeful sleeper to spend a night at a sleep laboratory!"

"The problem with claims of continuous awareness during sleep is that we cannot be conscious of being unconscious. The moments or hours that we pass unconsciously are forever veiled in oblivion. Not only do we fail to remember them, but we also forget that we forgot them. The fact is that we are normally fully conscious of our selves and of our actions for only brief moments, even while being what we call "awake." But in spite of the fact that we are only occasionally conscious of our selves, we experience ourselves as being continuously present. This is because our minds operate in such a fashion as to construct coherence and continuity out of our experiences. Thus we gloss over the blank spots in our consciousness, and since the first thing we remember when emerging from our unconsciousness or sleep is the last thing we were conscious of when awake, we may mistakenly assume that our consciousness was never lost."

"In spite of these reservations, I see no reason in principle why a higher development of the human mind could not result in a continuity of consciousness throughout sleep, as described by Aurobindo. Such an advanced level of consciousness would only reveal itself as the product of an extensive course of training in mental discipline. We may well be able to learn how to dream with degrees of lucidity and control as yet undreamt of." More Light! Stephen

Ryan

Truly, WIDs (again, I leave out the L, since I was not lucid) were amazing events for me. I say "were" because I don't have them anymore. What's interesting from a lucid dreaming perspective is that I realize, reviewing my journal, that most of my WIDs have been spontaneous, meaning they occured without my specifically intending them and without practicing specific induction techniques.

The fact is that most of them occured while I was taking a certain prescription medication for my diabetes, which I no longer take, called Reglan (metaclopramide). Now, this medicine has a powerful side effect of marked sleepiness even after a good night's sleep, a real hangover! It was not unusual for me to sleep four or more extra hours (on weekends) after taking the medicine the previous evening, (which is why I stopped taking it, and probably why I don't have WIDs or WILDS now). I would have these WIDs during that prolonged sleep, occasionally two or more the same morning, each one after a brief awakening, without even trying. On returning to sleep I would immediately experience the vibrations and lift-off, etc., the "typical OBE" experience, then move on from there to explore the unknown.

While I am philosophically and medically opposed to taking drugs to try to have LDs, I am fascinated by the possibility that prescription meds that produce prolonged sleepiness as a side effect might produce a higher frequency of spontaneous or intended WILDs. Such medications might include some of the older antihistamines, benzodiazepines like Valium, and so forth. I would be interested in anyone's experience with this. Of course, this is a thread that properly belongs elsewhere. I leave it to the administrators to decide.

Paul

Stephen,

I understand your defining of implicit/explicit above, but I would like to point out that as you have stated in the case of walking across the room--"If I walk across the room, I will become lucid", then doing so, and then responding, "Of course! This is a dream!"--it might otherwise be interpreted as a low level of initial doubt ("I'm almost certain it's a dream"), an act of verification (actually walking, which may be a subtle reality test), thus dispelling all doubt, or reaching full cognizance ("Of course!"), etc. If that were the case, then implicit lucidity would really imply an element of uncertainty.

Does this make sense?

Paul

Jeff

With respect to your question, I wonder if these individuals said to be conscious 24/7 aren't in fact able to dream lucidly right through non-REM as well as REM sleep, thereby leaving no gaps. Some science I read recently suggests,(to this amateur, anyway), that this is at least theoretically possible, although non-REM dreaming must in general be pretty rare, let alone to do so lucidly.

Stephen, have you found anyone who could have a non-REM LD? Do you think it is theoretically possible?

Paul

CONTINUOUS LUCIDITY

"And Jeff, I am sorry to say that we haven't YET come across anyone who possesses the skills claimed by Auribindo in the following.'

How disappointing! I thought for sure some Buddhist or Dervish would have wandered in and helped provide some real evidence for the claims of their Traditions.

"The problem with claims of continuous awareness during sleep is that we cannot be conscious of being unconscious'..' (snipped)

It seems like many Traditions claim that an awareness DOES exist beyond "reflective consciousness', and that the "reflective consciousness" itself represents one barrier to achieving this "higher" awareness. But once you break past that barrier, then "reflective awareness" becomes integrated as a subset of this new level of awareness. Which to me means a person could then easily report when they enter the dream state and have "awareness" of both cognizant, and non-cognizant dreaming. (Ken Wilber defines this sort of dream awareness as "pellucid dreaming')

"Such an advanced level of consciousness would only reveal itself as the product of an extensive course of training in mental discipline.'

Hence my disappointment, I always thought the Traditions provided this sort of extensive training in mental discipline. I would have hoped that at least a handful of students would have succeeded, and dropped by your lab, or maybe even the so-called "teachers" themselves.

It almost makes me want to abandon my Vipassana meditation practice, and abandon the Sufi's Khwajan aphorisms'.. almost :-) I can still dream about it can't I?

--Jeff