/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5962911
I don't know report back with your experience
Time to learn to do it yourself

Hi there, as a 'lucid dreamer' i can tell you that this is simply impossible.

There is a problem of memory. Remembering every occurrence within dreams (lucid, or non-lucid) is an unobtainable goal. Things that happen in your dreams are not committed to long-term memory unless you actively do this yourself, either through using a journal, or replaying the dream over in your head after you have woken. Dreams that are not committed in this way are usually forgotten within an hour or so of waking up. Of course there are special cases, such as re-occurring dreams that you remember via repetition.

There are other problems as well, such as the quality of sleep you get when lucid dreaming. If you were to replace your normal sleep pattern entirely with lucid dreaming, you would find yourself mentally exhausted after some time.

Also, the popular characterization of Lucid Dreaming is mostly fiction.
If you have any further questions I will lurk around for a while.

I was looking around on some lucid dreaming websites a few months ago. Some people there claim to use the extra conscious time to prepare for speeches etc. Assuming that they're not lying it seems what you're saying is possible.

I've had a few lucid dreams myself and I think one would need a lot of practice to be able to pot them to any use, however.

Why the fuck do I keep seeing these 'Lucid dreaming is questionable' threads on 4chan. It's proven. You have the hardware - you can easily enough discover how real it is. I've been lucid dreaming for years.

>If we assume lucid dreaming is possible

It is a well established fact.
It should be possible to put them to good use, normal dreaming helps us learn and many inventions were dreamt

>>5966625
>It is a well established fact.

No, it isn't. It is untestable /x/ garbage. 0/10

>>5966806
Aside from the fact it's easily testable and an established fact

>>5966817
Troll harder, idiot.

>>5966823
Post studies that show it isn't real http://www.lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html

>>5966840
>lucidity.com

What's next? Are you gonna quote truthism.com as a source to validate the claim that nazi reptilians built the pyramids?

>>5962911
>If we assume lucid dreaming is possible

my lels


I'm an avid lucid dreamer. It's nearly impossible for myself to control my dreams entirely. Most of the time it is simply, "oh shit I'm dreaming" and then I just go with whatever's happening for a bit and then conjure up a girl to bang (srs). That's about the extent of my lucid dreaming, I can't actually fly around or shit very often because when I try to do intricate tasks I end up "blacking out" and waking up. It would be near impossible to conjure up a dream reality every night I lucid dream - almost every night it's in a different setting with different people that I can't really control and changes on its own.

Only one time have I had full control of my dream. It was surreal. It was a couple of months after inception actually. At that time I was taking piracetam which induces lucid dreaming on its own, so that coupled with my already ability to do it made me have a crazy ass lucid dream. It was the most vivid and longest I ever had...I went into a grassy field, laid down on it, felt it, even inspected it up close and it was EXACTLY like real life, I was seriously fucking amazed. I just laid there looking at the grass having crystal clear thoughts of how nuts this is, how insane that I am practically in a different reality that I mustered up out of nothing. Then I remembered that scene in Inception where leo creates a city, so I figured fuck it and tried. I conjured up these tall ass grey buildings in the distance out of peripheral vision and walked over, checked them out, walked around...it was surreal. All I kept thinking was I hope I don't wake up.

>>5966823
What is a dream?

>>5966848
>Ignoring the content because of where it's posted

You also failed to post studies that show it isn't real

>>5966871
The word "dream" has two meanings which are not related. It is either a term to summarize all neuronal activity during sleep (this is the scientific definition) or it refers to spiritual phenomena (this definition is only used by dualists and other /x/tards).

>>5966872
>proof me wrong lol
It is not my burden of proof. Scientists have better things to do than disproving every single nonsense claim made by crackpots and spiritualist dumbfucks. Post your definition and your evidence or GTFO.

>>5966881
I have already posted evidence therefore the burden of proof is on you to say why it's wrong. Here are some more things for you to prove wrong http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lucid+dreaming+studies
Obviously I and everyone but shitposter such as yourself use the scientific definition

>>5966881
The scientific definition of lucid dreaming is neuronal activity during sleep that explicitly includes activity in the DLPFC.

>>5966898
You did not post any definition so far and your pseudoscience link is not an acceptable source. Neither does an "lmgtfy" link prove anything. Please post your definition and your evidence or go back to >>>/x/

>>5966921
That's cool but unfortunately it has nothing to do with the OP who is obviously using a compeletely different definition that has nothing to do with science anymore and is purely based on spiritualism.

>>5966881
>dream is defined as all neuronal activity during sleep
That's wildly retarded

>>5966881
>It is either a term to summarize all neuronal activity during sleep (this is the scientific definition)
You are clearly 14 yrs old.

>>5966931
>what happens when an underagedb& attempts the rationalist-fundamentalist troll

>>5966931
I said I was using the scientific definition you posted. The burden of proof is on you to explain why links that prove you wrong are not useful, explain why the studies are not valid. Post a study on lucid dreaming that backs up your beliefs, if you do not you are no different from any other religious fundamentalist unwilling to accept the facts

>>5966934
>>5966940
>>5966945
>mad /x/tards resorting to baseless insults after being proven wrong by science

>>5966946
>I said I was using the scientific definition you posted
I did not post any definition of "lucid dreaming". I do not believe in scientifically untestable and unobservable spiritualism hogwash.

>The burden of proof is on you to explain why links that prove you wrong are not useful
Maybe, but first of all you'll have to post them. Post a scientific definition and post academically accepted, peer reviewed evidence. Then we can talk.

>>5966958
>It is either a term to summarize all neuronal activity during sleep (this is the scientific definition)

Stop lying

I have done both but there is no reasoning with religious zealots like you

>>5966978
That's the definition of "dream". What makes a dream "lucid"? The answer is there are no "lucid dreams" in the scientific meaning of the word. The combination "lucid" + "dream" only occurs in spiritual drivel like the one posted by OP and belongs on >>>/x/

>>5966958
>>mad /x/tards resorting to baseless insults after being proven wrong by science
do you really think dreams are all neuronal activity during sleep. for example, do you think the medula/pons complex activity that controls breathing is a dream?

>>5966990
Post a better definition. But remember to keep it scientific, i.e. it has to be objectively observable. So you better keep out the spiritualism shit.

>>5966995
>it has to be objectively observable
That isnt what scientific means

>>5966996
Do you even scientific method? Science requires objectivity and observational evidence.

>>5966987
>That's the definition of "dream"
so my hypothalamus regulating my temperature while i sleep is considered a dream

>>5966995
So you accept your definition is insanely wrong?

>>5966995
the experimenter observes REM and correlates it with observations of his subject reporting vivid dreams

an experimenter can objectively observe the reporting of subjective experience.

>>5967003
Thanks for pointing out how useless the definition is.

>>5967007
Not wrong, just useless. And it is not my definition, it is how neuroscience defines the term. But nobody uses it anyway, because we prefer to make more meaningful and more precise statements about neuronal activity instead.

>>5967012
I asked you to post a definition.

>>5967014
>it is how neuroscience defines the term
citation needed

>>5967026
the standard definition is EEG traces that resemble waking ones ("resemble" is technically defined). with two subtypes: such traces coincident with REM sleep (REM dreams) and those not (NREM dreams)

>>5967002
>Science requires objectivity
no

>>5967053
Cool story. Now find me the sentence where OP is talking about EEG.

>>5967055
Bro, do you even science?

>>5967067
yes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_report

>>5967077
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_has_wikipedia_article_so_it_must_be_science_Cool_fallacy_bro

>>5967080
argumentum ad hominem

>>5967087
nope

>>5967089
yes, you attacked the source and not the content

>>5962936
Good post

>perceived time elapsed in a dream can be greater than the time spent asleep

The first step to a lucid dream is to realize you are in a dream.

I once had a dream that lasted over a year. I woke up in my bedroom, lived my daily normal life. Then I realized it was a dream. Realizing this would cause me to wake up in my bedroom. Except it was still a dream. Eventually I'd figure out it's a dream then wake up in my bedroom again....and again....and again. This lasted for what felt like months. Real life Inception shit.

When I finally did wake up it couldn't believe I was still awake. Just like Mal in inception. It was a good 2 weeks or so before I shook the feeling that I was still trapped in the dream.

>>5966806
Actually it's real. Almost every people had a lucid dream, me too for example. Not a big deal. It's about how aware your mind is. There are techniques to lucid dream but don't expect much, it's not magic. Everybody can do it. The risks are that it's hard to stop lucid dreaming and you can get a sleep paralysis or/and if you are unlucky you hallucinate scary shit or have a nightmare.

The problem that you can never pracice maths while dreaming. Next time if you lucid dream, look at a number, then look away, then look there again, it will be different or even disappear and another thing appears. Once i had a dream when i was thinking about a mathematical problem, when i woke up i just only remembered i was standing in front of the board and mistily i remember that there was a formula there but i can't remember shit. See, i think regular dreams are not good to learn or think on problems. BUT!

I don't know who had daydreams, but i usually have and it's great, you just bouncing very quickly on different ideas, and for example i understand a stuff what earlier i didn't understand. You know, it just popped in. This could be an essential way, if it's not a bullshit many famous scientist declared that he had a dream about his problem and solved it.

>>5967090
I did not attack the source and even if I did, it would not be ad hominem because wikipedia is not human. You committed the fallacy argumentum ad wikipediam by linking a wikipedia article that doesn't support your claim. Your link only serves the purpose of distracting from your lack of understanding.

>>5967098
Please keep spiritualism on /x/.

>>5967109
>It is real because I want 2 believe

This is a science board. Post objectively verifiable evidence or GTFO.

>>5967089
>>5967090
kids, you're annoying. It bumps in the catalog every minutes.

Why don't you read "THE paper" (with experiments and shit) and discuss about it ?

This is an ugly version, not the original one (which is old), but it's still more serious than your little war.
You're going nowhere.

Lucid Dreams: An Electrophysiological and Psychological Study.
https://mega.co.nz/#!ucZVhQwQ!SftqHD8fPg2yPJUAY8Xu402uxaIHfqKF-BZYSCa7Jmk

>>5967067
I have no interest in OP's post. I am countering your amateurish trolling nonsense.

>>5967115
>I did not attack the source
yes you did, you implied wikipedia is automatically wrong because not everything on it is science

>because wikipedia is not human
ad hominem is also known as 'attacking the source' and Wikipedia is written by humans

>argumentum ad wikipediam
no such thing

>doesn't support your claim
yes it does, subjective reports are an experimental method in psychology

>Your link only serves the purpose of distracting from your lack of understanding.
nay

>>5967137
he's a kid attempting the >>>/x/ troll

best to ignore him

>>5967121
I will not follow a link that gives me a virus.

>>5967137
>you implied wikipedia is automatically wrong because not everything on it is science
No, I didn't. But you implies everything on wikipedia was science. This is not true.

>subjective reports are an experimental method in psychology
That's why psychology is not a science.

>>5967140
Go back to >>>/b/

>>5967150
TOP LEL.

it's not going to bite you...oO. It's just a link man. If you dl a .exe, just doesn't clik on it...

>>5967118
???? want to believe,?
Retard fuck. I didn't say that, i just said i fucking had a lucid dream. Many times. And i said it's not a big thing because it's the same mistily stuff like a normal dream.

And no. It's not, it's not a science board, look this thread, this isn't science. And look the other threads, IQ threads, advices, troll shit, trash etc. And you want to tell me to post evidence about my dream. Idiot.

>>5967150
>But you implies everything on wikipedia was science.
no i didnt

>That's why psychology is not a science.
psychology is by definition a science

>>5967161
>psychology is by definition a science
So what you're saying is that most of what is published in journals of psychology, and most of what people learn in psychology classes, and most of what psychologists work on, is not psychology.

>>5967156
>i fucking had
Your assertions are worthless to science. Post verifiable facts or GTFO.

>it's not a science board, look this thread, this isn't science.
/sci/ is for science and math. If we had moderation, this thread wouldn't exist anymore.

>>5967171
that wasnt implied at all

>>5967176
>/sci/ is for science and math. If we had moderation, this thread wouldn't exist anymore.

lol \/
*If we had moderation, this board wouldn't exist anymore.

Fixed.

>>5967177
If you want to make this kind of argument, "psychology is science because it's defined as science", without addressing the claim that the work being done in psychology is not scientific, then yes, you are implying that what's being called "psychology" is not really psychology.

This is the problem with making such idiotic semantic arguments. You have not countered the claim you were arguing against at all, you've just introduced an element of absurdity.

>>5967150
>I will not follow a link that gives me a virus.
I dl the pdf from >>5967121 and uploaded it here :
http://www.fichier-pdf.fr/2013/08/14/an-electro-physiological-and-psychological-study/

there is a preview. Reassured ?

Now read, and shut up.

>>5967191
>the work being done in psychology is not scientific
except your the one making that claim

i bet you took a psychology class in high school and suddenly think freud is psychology

>>5967205
you're

>>5967176
I just posted my experience AND my opinion. I don't care what is worthless for you.

Oh YEs! Tell me what does /sci/ stands for please!
>>If we had

test

>>5967093
>Le upboat

>>5967176
> Post verifiable facts or GTFO.
>>5967206
Don't pretend you didn't see that post.

>>5967118
ban this guy for fucks sake he is fucking retarded

>>5967211
/sci/ does not care about your opinion. Science needs objectively verifiable evidence.

>>5967242
I am not a guy and with an IQ > 140 I am definitely not retarded. Your ad hominem attacks will achieve nothing.

>>5967191
How is psychology not scientific?

>>5962911
so you want to be enlightened by your own intelligence?

It would be better to use some kind of meditation for that. A trance can replicate many dream-like properties but you're not doing it while you're tired so your brain isn't dealing with that.

It's still really hard to control without breaking it.

>>5967268
>>5967176
> Post verifiable facts or GTFO.
>>5967206 (You)
Don't pretend you didn't see that post.

>>5967268
>IQ > 140

With what IQ test?

>>5967287
>argumentum verbosum
You cannot expect me to read 434 pages just to find out whether your text is crackpottery or not. I asked you for a scientific definition of the phenomenon you claim to exist. Can you please post the definition? If the text you linked has any scientific merit, it surely contains a definition.

>>5967288
>meditation
I want /x/ to leave.

>mfw when I fly during lucid dreams, and I KNOW it's impossible because I am IN a dream. But I still can choose my direction :)

Proven or not, I so much don't care...

>>5962911
Hah, reminds me of the hyperbolic time chamber in dragonball z. Although you are limited in improving your mind only, it's an interesting scenario OP.

>>5967297
lol, you're not serious.
If I hade given you a 5 pages pdf, you'll have said it's not enough.

That's called a paper, dude. deal with it.

And, you know, there is an abstract. And you can go to the experiment part.

You have all what you asked for. Such a of bad faith. Not really scientific...

>>5967305
So you cannot post the definition and you cannot even tell me on which page I can find it? Your claims are hereby invalidated.

>>5967297
>I use latin, so I look smart
"It has been clearly demonstrated in this Subject that subjectively
reported dream activities, deliberately marked at the time by ocular signals, show
great accord with polygraphic evidence obtained from unambiguous Stage REM
sleep."
extract from the paper.

>>5967315
Still no answer to my question. I asked you for a definition of "lucid dream". You claim those exist, so please define them in terms of scientifically observable effects.

>>5967323
Subjective experience doesn't exist according to your philosophy? Fuck off retard.

>>5967317
>what is "ctrl+F"
>>5967323
"the dreamer has insight whilst dreaming that the
experience is a dream and can, to some extent, manipulate dream content and course of action.
[...]
Obviously, a signaling technique (from the Subject) would first have to be devised, though.
[...]
a switching device operated by ocular signals."

So they say
"I have lucid dreams, I can control myself"
Scientist says : "OK, you need to report"
Some (not all) lucid-dreamers were able to move their eyes in a pre-defined way, while all the brain signals showed no difference with a normal person who is asleep.

>>5967268
>>/sci/ does not care about your opinion.

You are not /sci/. What do you think? You are the suzerain of /sci/ or what?

Ahahah IQ > 140 sure D:D. If your IQ would be that high, you would understand that in a propriate thread like this, there is a place for opinions. Oh don't fucking tell me again it's a science board because i go apeshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream
http://www.lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html
http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html
http://www.lucidity.com/slbbs/index.html
http://lucidity.com/DreamLight_Validity.txt

This is short i hope you can read a few pages with your 140 > IQ :) http://library.macewan.ca/lucidity/LL%204.2/Out%20of%20body%20experiencesas%20lucid%20dreams-Rogo.htm

How to lucid dream:
http://www.wikihow.com/Lucid-Dream

Here is the definition:
http://books.google.com/books?id=rXKSn02mlz4C&pg=PA236&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.dreamviews.com/content/what-lucid-dreaming-16/

>>5962911
>If we assume lucid dreaming is possible
I stopped right there.. I have lucid dreams.

>>5967342
Bullshit without evidence has to be dismissed by Hitchens' razor.

>>5967344
Not testable, not science. I told you to keep spiritualism out of /sci/.

>>5967780
I asked you for reliable academic sources. Again you posted links to your spiritualism website and to wikipedia articles not supporting your claims. Do you have any idea what a peer reviewed journal is? Have you ever heard of research and the scientific method? Please educate yourself and stop shitting up /sci/ with your ludicrous /x/ drivel.

>>5968086

You are not a scientist.

>>5968106
I have academic science education and I am using the scientific method every day. Tell me how that doesn't make me a scientist.

>>5968119

none of this ever happened

>>5968086
>Not testable, not science
Do u even read ?
"a switching device operated by ocular signals."
...
"Some (not all) lucid-dreamers were able to move their eyes in a pre-defined way, while all the brain signals showed no difference with a normal person who is asleep."

>>5968127
Go shitpost somewhere else. >>>/b/

>>5968132
>while all the brain signals showed no difference

Nice to see you debunk your own nonsense in your own post.

>>5968137
?
you dumb ?
that's why you can assume they're not faking. "oh, I'm asleep, look, my eyes are closed".

They are really sleeping, you can not differentiate them from "normal dreamers", observing EM signals

But, if you have a signaling technique (move the eyes), you observe that they have some control.

>>5968145
>you can not differentiate them from "normal dreamers", observing EM signals

That means the concept of "lucid dreaming" has no meaning whatsoever outside of spiritualism. If there is no scientifically detectable difference, it is a useless concept. Please keep your dualism bullshit on >>>/x/

>>5968086
>I asked you for reliable academic sources.
Cambridge press :
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=84349

Perceptual and Motor Skills
est.1949; Peer-reviewed, bimonthly publication; General topic areas related to perception and motor skills :
http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1981.52.3.727

>>5968155
I do not have access to these papers and I am not going to pay for them. If they contain a scientific definition of the subject in question, then please post it here.

>People think that lucid dreams aren't real
Wut.

>>5968157
there is a whole pdf that has been post, you didn't even look at it.
You're acting like a kid, not like a scientist, who would have read, just to break the argument if their bad. You are trying to avoid the debate here.

And 2nd paper is free...

>>5968165
they're

>>5968164
>people posting /x/ shit without evidence on /sci/

>>5968165
I am not going to read 434 pages just to find out that you're a low tier troll. If you had a scientific definition of your spiritual phenomenon, you would have posted it by now. You refuse to do so and all you do is distracting and avoiding my questions.

>>5968133

you have provided no evidence you are a professional scientist, therefore we must conclude you are not one.

>>5968168
>admirable relentless trolling

>>5968168
> If you had a scientific definition of your spiritual phenomenon,
>>5967344
"the dreamer has insight whilst dreaming that the
experience is a dream and can, to some extent, manipulate dream content and course of action.
Obviously, a signaling technique (from the Subject) would first have to be devised, though."

papers that you don't want to read state that :
Two men independently proved lucid dreaming to be a real phenomenon using very similar methods.
They both did experiments where a subject went to sleep intending to have a lucid dream. The subject was hooked up to a machine that measures eye movements, and when he had achieved the lucid dream state he was to use his closed eyes to send a signal (left, right, left, right, very slowly). The eye muscles are one of the only muscles that remain un-paralyzed during REM sleep, so this was a pretty good plan. Both parties were successful in sending/receiving messages from a lucid dream, and lucid dreaming is now a scientifically verified fact.

Can we begin a discussion now ?

>>5968174
>Obviously, a signaling technique (from the Subject) would first have to be devised, though.

Your own quote admits that your bullshit is not testable. Are you seriously too dense to see that you're debunking your own claims?

>>5968182
sending a signal with the eyes is not testable ?

>>>/x/

>>5962911

lucid dreaming is real. /thread

look up calea zacatechichi

>>5968185
A lucid dream is any dream in which one is aware that one is dreaming.

are you just retarded?

>>5968187
Lucid dreaming is real. This is not up for debate, just go ask a neuroscientist. I lucid dream all the fucking time.

It would be pretty impossible to use it for learning related activity. Many parts of your brain that are required for complex maths, languages, phil are working at a reduced capacity while you are lucid dreaming.

>>5968192
Untestable spiritualism shit belongs on >>>/x/

>>5968196
>can't into neuroscience

4chan is for 18+
plz go

>>5968195
>>5968197
Neuroscience is a science. Science deals with observable and testable phenomena, not with "muh spiritual enlightenment". Please get your retarded ass back to >>>/x/

>>5968196
>implying dreaming isn't biological

Are you fucking stupid?

>>5968204
What definition of dream are you using? OP is using the spiritual definition, not the biological one.

>>5968206

No, he isn't.
You are an idiot.

>>5968205
>spirtiual entanglement

You seem to be confusing Mysticism bullshit with the basic biological process of lucid dreaming. Why? What is wrong with you?

>>5968207
He is talking about spiritualism shit without any scientifically testable definition.

>>5968208
Define it in a precise and scientific manner or fuck off. I'm fed up with your /x/ trolling bullshit.

>>5968206
>OP is using the spiritual defintion of dreaming

Nope. No where does OP mention any spiritual nonsense. You trollin kid?

>>5968214
Did you even read his post, fucktard? Pure /x/ nonsense.

>>5968213
Sorry, I didn't realized you were new to the internet. I forget simpletons like you don't know how to look up basic things.

"A lucid dream is any dream in which one is aware that one is dreaming."

That is a pretty clear cut precise and scientifc defintion. What part don't you understand?

And.....welcome to the internet!

>>5968223
I asked you for a TESTABLE definition, you fucking asshole troll. Do you know what TESTABLE means? "Muh private spiritual experience" is NOT TESTABLE. Fuck off and stop polluting /sci/ with you anti-scientific crap posting.

>>5968196
>>5968205
>>5968206
>>5968213

All your answers are here. You ignore the post when you're not able to answer...
>>5968174
>>5968186

you have definitions and papers peer-reviewed, (free or not)
What are you waiting ?

>>5968216
>confirmed for a weak minded fool
>confirmed to have never had a lucid dream

I feel really sorry for you. Nothing OP says is "spiritual" or "magical". OP is just asking questions about dreams. Dreams are biological processes that we all experience. There is a shit ton of scientifc research done on dreams.

>>5968232
>>5968233
Do you seriously not understand the scientific method? Without observable effects we cannot do science.

>>5968230
> TESTABLE
"The subject was hooked up to a machine that measures eye movements, and when he had achieved the lucid dream state he was to use his closed eyes to send a signal (left, right, left, right, very slowly)"

Stop ignoring.
Look at the evidence
you lose

>>5968230
0/100

Be more subtle when you troll

>>5968236
So fucking what? That only proves the subject can follow simple instructions. It doesn't prove metaphysical magic. Troll harder, idiot.

>>5968238
Unlike you I am serious. This is a science board. GTFO to >>>/b/ with your troll shit.

>>5962911
>and that the perceived time elapsed in a dream can be greater than the time spent asleep

While it's possible to feel years or days go by within a lucid dream, the amount of work your brain can do is obviously confined by physical reality. You can only do one waking hour worth of mental labor per hour of sleep at the very most. You can feel like you've spent years in your dream, but only by losing a helluvalot of detail.

>Does this sound possible or is it just science fiction nonsense?

There is no speculative technological or scientific progress required for this. The genre would be low fantasy, not science fiction.

>If it's possible to remember all the occurances within a lucid dream I imagine with some practice you would be able to create a fairly stable dream world where-in you could practice something like maths, languages or philosophy. Any sort of pursuit which you would normally be able to study without a textbook could potentially benefit from this.

There is almost no outside reference in dreams. If you have the impression something makes sense, your dream-world will by default conform to a reality where that something is true. As a general rule, the skeptical part of your mind is simply not active in dreams, making you practically incapable of testing uncertain statements. That's why lucid dreaming techniques rely on making reality checks a default action rather than one borne of skepticism. Learning is impossible, and revision is probably hard.

>>5968237
Are you really telling me you never had a dream and known you were dreaming?

Goddam, How low is your IQ?

Most people experience lucid dreaming. It isn't even up for fucking debate anymore. It is a well established fact. Current research is mainly now focused on how "lucid dreaming" is related to difference states of conscioness (dreaming, waking, etc).

You going to deny that love exists too, just because you have never experienced it? LMFAO

>one autist gets buttmad at this thread
>instead of hiding it he keeps spamming spiritualism and lucid dreaming threads in the hope mods will remove them all, including this one
Jesus Christ, how mad do you have to be?

>>5968239

>be the only poster talking about metaphysical nonsense

>complain about all the metaphysical nonsense

Obvious dumb christian fundie is obvious

>>5968239
>So fucking what? That only proves the subject can follow simple instructions.
>can follow simple instructions.
In a dream.

So he has insight whilst dreaming that the
experience is a dream.

>>5968258
I think your arguing with a troll. No one can be that stupid.

>>5968252
>Are you really telling me you never had a dream and known you were dreaming?
I never had spiritual experiences. I am a rational person.

>Goddam, How low is your IQ?
Between 140 and 180.

>It isn't even up for fucking debate anymore.
This is a science board, you imbecilic cretin. Science requires evidence.

>>5968257
Are you retarded? ITT I am defending science against the /x/tards.

>>5968258
How does that prove spiritual magic? I don't see it.

>>5968239
>Unlike you I am serious
-3/10

>>5968263
Hey troll, nice trollins

>>5968268
>>5968270
I'm serious, you fucking asshole. Explain it in terms of science to me or GTFO the fuck out.

>>5962911
It is possible to have "waking level" memory retention in a lucid dream. You can remember is just like any other waking experience you may have.

It is possible to "change/create" some aspects of a lucid dream (a regular dream too). I doubt it is possible to fully create everything though.

Dreams usually don't obey the same "scale rules" as reality. Often things blur and smudge together. It is often possible for things to follow a fractal like behavior too (ie no level of zooming will allow you to read book text or see fine properties of materials).

Many parts of your brain are also operating at halfmast, including the part that is responsible for language. So lucid dreaming isn't really the best place to study.

>>5968272
>How does that prove spiritual magic?
That doesn't prove "spiritual magic".

If you read the paper, that proves that the
dreamer has insight whilst dreaming that the
experience is a dream and can communicate/report, in a scientific way
(predefined moves of the eyes).

Which is the definition you are asking for.

Srsly, read the papers. You're just avoiding the evidences.

>I never had spiritual experiences. I am a rational person.
You never had a dream ?

>>5968263
Plz take your trolling to /x/

>>5968280
Arguing with a troll?
Why?

>>5968278
I am not trolling.

>>5968280
>You never had a dream ?
No, I never had a dream. I do not understand what you are talking about.

>>5968283
I'm trying to improve my english and my patience.

(I never had a lucid dream).
I just stay polite (no insult, no bad words, nothing, unlike him) and reply with facts.

I know it leads us nowhere
See it like an exercise of self-control :).

1 years ago, I would have been angry of such bad faith. Now, I'm just laughing

>>5962911

This paper summarries what a "lucid dream" actually is in terms of neurobiology. It is a really intertest read OP.

Muzur A, Pace-Schott EF; Allan Hobson (November 2002). "The prefrontal cortex in sleep" (PDF). Trends Cogn Sci. 1;2(11) (11): 475–481. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01992-7.

>>5968291
I find the best way to lucid dream is to exhaust your body, but not your mind. This is really easy if you are a thinker (High IQ). It is really hard if you are a dummy (Low IQ).

You want your body to be so fucking tired that it needs rest, yet your brain is still very active. You will easily enter sleep paralysis, and then lucid dreaming. It sucks to get stuck in sleep paralysis though.

>>5968293
>I am not trolling
see pic

>>5968293
...
End of the thread no ?

Maybe it is time for your lunch, kid ?
You had a good time here, hope it makes you feel happier.
But face it, you're alone here against the "bad peoples". You deserve a rest/ a nap

>>5968306
>for posterity.png

Srllsy, make a pack with all his replies, that's a wonderful example of maximum autism.

I really hope he is <14yo.

>>5968293
>I never had a dream

If only there was a place you could go to look up shit...
A collection of databases, encyclopedias, and libraries....
A worldwide collection of severs and computers....
Full of definitions and easy to access infomation.....
If only.....

If only there was an "inter-net" of infomation maybe your wouldn't be so fucking ignorant?

My closest experience to lucid dreaming, can someone tell me if it was a LD?

I felt I was awake but couldn't open my eyes no matter how hard I tried. I stood at the end of my bed and felt the glow of the sun you feel when u have closed eyes and look to the sun. Was so real. I was trying for over an hour to open them. I walked around my house. I could open them a little and see blurred images on my house, where I was atm. Then I opened them a little once, saw what I saw at the side of the bed. Opened them fully and woke up immediately.


Anyone with similar experiences ?

>>5968304
Fuck off, troll. >>>/b/

>>5968306
What is that picture supposed to prove? It shows how I debunk a fallacy posted by an /x/tard.

>>5968311
I am 20 and I am not a "he". Go shitpost somewhere else and stop derailing our science board with childish nonsense.

>>5968307
How am I ignorant? Unlike you I am scientifically educated, dumbass.

Well it looks likes /sci/'s resident autist is back.

And just to let all the trolls/retards know, lucid dreaming is quite literally being in a dream and being aware that you are dreaming. That's it. It's not spiritual, it's not astral projection, it's just your brain is awake while your body is asleep.

>>5968309
Yeah, that sounds like some lucid dreaming with some sleep paralysis thrown in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

You were in sleep paralysis, then you went into lucid dreaming. Happens all the fucking time. Then you go back to a little sleep paralysis, and then you are awake.

"Most out of body" experiences are just a combination of lucid dreaming and sleep paralysis. Dumb people are tricked into thinking they left there body, when in reality that feeling is just the transition between sleep paralysis and certain types of lucid dreaming.

It is very common for lucid dreams to be "copies" of your surroundings. If you are smart enough though, you will be able to notice a shit ton of inconsistencies, signs that in fact you are still dreaming and not in reality.

>>5968309
>similar experiences

Happens to me all the fucking time

>>5968309
Pretty normal shit bro. Your brain was active, but your body was tired. It happens.

>>5968311
This thread is a goldmine
Also I'm not english, please tell me if I made mistakes

>>5968315
"Awareness" is untestable spiritual bullshit. It is not a scientific concept. GTFO

>>5968325
This one may be better

>>5968326
lol
>"Awareness" is untestable
>>5968280
If you read the paper, that proves that the
dreamer has insight whilst dreaming that the
experience is a dream and can communicate/report, in a scientific way
(predefined moves of the eyes).

>>5968314
>I am 20 and I am not a "he".
-> /29/

> our science board
>OUR
-> /15/

>>5968316
I knew I was dreaming. It seemed so real, but I was 100% sure it was a dream. However, I didn't know how to wake up.

>>5968330
Good :)
I think you can make it even better (see the end, he avoid the evidences again, when there are more sources)

For instance :
>>5968155
>>5968157
>>5968165

>>5962936
>you would find yourself mentally exhausted after some time.

Kinda true, once I tried to do it for quite long and when woke up, I was completely refreshed, however, as you force yourself to dream for longer than you need, you mind/body gets exhausted of dreaming and you get bored (just like when you stay awake for really long, you lose interest in everything you do and want to sleep, the reverse is true when you over dream.

Highly doubt that you could easily train yourself to do new things in dreams, basically every dream I have links back to things I have experienced or thought during the day.

>>5968338

>>5968331
What does this have to do with my post? Stop moving the goalposts.

>>5968346
:D
"I am using the scientific method every day"
"That makes me a scientist"

God, this thread is hilarious, I will save it somewhere.

>>5962911
"Dream time" is basically the raw speed of thoughts.

"Waking time" is what happens when we have to devote most of our brain (processing) to stimli recongition and supression. All the fucking brain bandwidth is taken up by those processes, and you have almost nothing left over. Every second your brain is recieving, recognizing, and filtering hundreds of hundreds of stimuli, passing only the most important ones to your conscioussness.

The same shit happens when you go into an isolation tank (removes stimili). You start thinking much much much faster, and it feels like forever has gone by in just a few minutes.

>>5968350
you post stated
>"Awareness" is untestable

I reply :
>If you read the paper, that proves that the
dreamer has insight whilst dreaming that the
experience is a dream and can communicate/report, in a scientific way
(predefined moves of the eyes).

Get it ?

>>5968351
I'm 21 and I have a Ph.D in mathematics from princeton

>>5968357
No you're doing it wrong.
>>5968314 (I am 20)

He's gonna get angry.
FEAR !
FEAAAAR the KING OF SCIENCE !!
/SCI/ IS HIS BOOOOAAAAAAARDDDDDD !!!

>>5968351
What do you think science is?

>>5968354
Your reply is unrelated to my post. Eye movement does neither prove nor imply a spiritual "awareness".

>>5968357
What is your field of research?

>>5968367
>cannot distinguish different anonymous posters

How underdeveloped are your cognitive skills?

>>5968338
I feel likeI should divide this one into small parts

>>5968366
No one is talking about spirituality except for you.

>>5968366
"Eye movement", no.
"predefined moves of the eyes", yes.
But you don't want to read...
I assure you the explanation are better in the original papers we gave you (I'm non-native speaker, so I'm not always clear).

You just reject them, because you don't want to look at facts. That's not a scientific behavior.

>>5968375
uh... the very fact (s)he said
"you're doing it wrong."
...
"He's gonna get angry."
show that (s)he understood...

>>5968377
Still arguing with a obvious troll? Classy

>>5968377
"Awareness" is a concept of spirituality, not science.

>>5968378
>"predefined moves of the eyes", yes.
No. Predefined moves of the eyes are still not related to spiritual "awareness".

>I'm non-native speaker
Neither am I. That's no excuse for ignoring or denying the scientific method, fucktard. Either you have evidence or you don't. Please post it or GTFO.

>>5968386
>"Awareness" is a concept of spirituality
No, prove it.

>>5968357
19, beat you by 2 years :^)

>>5968386
>spiritual
Try harder next time.

>>5968389
It's not my burden of proof, you shit troll.

>>5968399
Please learn the scientific method.

>>5968402
Yes it is. You're the one claiming it's a concept of spirituality, so prove it.

>>5968402

>>5968399

no, really, Philosophical Idealism of any kind am anti-science and anti-intellectual.

It are a fact.

Saint Hitchens said so.

>>5968409
You are the one claiming it's science. Your burden of proof.

>>5968413
>>>/b/

>>5968386
>"Awareness" is a concept of spirituality, not science.
Oxford dictionary :
knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.

-->perception is not related to "spirituallity" here, it is tested by the predefined moves of the eyes, that are the factual expression of the control of the dreamer on his dream.

You are the one speaking of "spiritual" every time.
You are also the one using bad words, which is not a scientific behavior. If you're right, you don't need insults. You can stay polite, as I do.

>>5968421
Wrong.

These are my only posts in the thread

>>5968377
>>5968389
>>5968409

Try again.

>>5968421
>>>/reddit/

>>5968438
Wooa, that one is a good one !

>>5968421
where are you, it's your nap ?
Or your eventually read the papers ?

You were fun, come back.
We'll miss you, sage.

fuck off

Aw, he got scared.
Shame that the thread is archived here with all the deleted posts :
https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/5962911

What if when you die, you enter a dreamlike state, and before your brain dies its perception of time in relation to the outside world gets faster and faster. What if this extends for near eternity from our perspective and we create our own afterlife in a lucid dream?

>>5968745

What have you got to lose? Try it. Report back.

This thread is GOLD !
I let the tab open after first post >>5962911

I just came back here 1 hour ago : owly shiiiiit ? What happened there ?

This Anon is incredible ! He even began to delete his posts :
admission of weakness...

So awkward !!
I hope he doesn't cry too much in his bed.

>>5968325
>>5968330
>>5968346
>>5968376
>>5968438
Thanks for your job, dude.
It'll be my daily remainder of how autistic 4chan can be.

>>5968633
>"Tu quoque mi fili", last word of the bright suzerain of /sci/
RIP.


And to get back to the subject : when I experience lucid dreams, I feel too excited. I know I shouldn't try too important changes.
But just *knowing* that I can choose my direction when I walk, it make me feel dizzy, and I see the dream slowly vanishing...
And I can't hold it.

This thread deserve a bump.
Have fun, anons.
15 minutes of happiness and joy.

Holy fucks the retards from /x/ always get me

>>5968839
try spinning around in place, and doing whatever your prefered reality check is (counting fingers, trying to breathe through your nose while pinching it closed, et cetera)

you can also try relinquishing control of the dream a little bit, and letting it flow naturally the way it was going to go (if you weren't lucid). that's a little more dificult, because you tend to fall back into a normal dream if you aren't careful. If there is no other option though, it's better than waking up. You could always become lucid again, it's sometimes harder to put yourself back to sleep

>>5968252
>iq must be low because you've never had a lucid dream
Nice false dichotomy

non-lucid dreaming is just a form of change blindness

>>5966958

>I do not believe in scientifically untestable hogwash
>I do not believe in subjective experience
>I do not believe in any TOE (e.g., string theory, M-theory)
>I do not believe in mathematical truths