Eduk wrote: ↑
April 26th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Karpel where are you getting your information? I agree lucid dreams were only confirmed relatively recently. But I have lucid dreamt and always assumed it was relatively common. A quick Google suggests roughly 55% of people have lucid dreamt, but I can't find a good source. Do you have a good source that it is rare? Or was controversial.
I'm old enough to have been around when the first, really rather alternative books came out on how to learn to do it. I saw that Wiki post and was surprised. Not only had people not heard of it back then, even when I explained it to them - and at the time it was social sciences academics around me - most of them did not experience them, except the occasional just before waking thinking this is odd or maybe a dream. The reason they did the experiments was to verify it was happening.
But once I saw that percentage, I added in the other characteristics: to be able to have them regularly. To be able to control the imagery, to stay in REM sleep while controlling the dream. As far as I know these are still rare and yet can be trained.
Also as far as I understand it the best way to lucid dream is to try. No great need for experts or gurus, maybe keep a dream journal.
Depends what you mean by trying, but there are further methods. Such as through the day asking yourself if you are dreaming and then checking what it is about your experiencing that let's you know you are not dreaming. This checking passes over into sleep. If you add in techniques related to what to do when you wake up from Rem sleep: such as go back through the dream you just had, replay it carefully then actively notice it is a dream, take over the images and action, you will also increase both frequency and control. I don't think I mentioned gurus, but yes, I think more experienced people who know techiniques can help people with less experience.
I mean I think I get your point. Expert A says you can't lucid dream because there is no evidence. Expert B says you can lucid dream and he is a guru who can teach you to dream and maybe makes other claims which turn out to be wrong and probably wants paying. And actual expert C proves it and identifies the mechanism and carefully explains that there is an area of the brain which identifies reality which is, effectively, turned off when you sleep ( or something like that, I'm not a neurologist).
So really the difficulty for us is in identifying expertise.
Sure and that can be tough with things like golf - which no one doubts, even if some of us dislike it. Sure we can see if they are a good golfer but not necessarily if they are a great teacher or one for you. If you get into more human sciences skills it gets trickier.
And yes, that was a fair rendition of my point - taking out the word guru. And yes, the difficulty is determining who is the expert. With someone fairly short term and safe like lucid dreaming, well trial and error finding a teacher works. I do get the problem when dealing with something at the level of a religion. But even if it is hard to tell, this does not mean that there cannot be experts, which was my point. I think in life most of us have decided to let someone mentor, guide, roll model us through something without refusing to do this without empirical research proving that person is the right person to guide us. And most of us have probably made mistakes also in our choice. My point is that we cannot dismiss the category of such a guide, even if the changes are hard or impossible to track via science.
Does this mean priests are right or some religious leaders are right about God? No.
But I saw a categorical dismissal being made that I do not think is sound.
I also think that categorical dismissal is likely one that most people do not follow. They have decided to follow someone without empirical proof as a way of learning. Yes, the thing they learned might have been within the what gets called materialist paradigm.