OBE or Lucid Dream?

Hi everyone!

I just had a question about OBE's. I am quite new to this, so I was wondering whether you would call my experience a lucid dream or OBE.

Twice (out of 4 times I've lucid dreamed), I felt like I was "double". I could feel my real body and the dream body at the same time. I never manage to actually get up and walk around, since I always wake up after trying to move my head. The other 2 times, I just felt as I do in real life (just one of me, but with oddly shaped arms). All 4 times, the vision is really fuzzy and unclear.

So my question is: when I feel "double" is that an OBE or am I just half-way between reality and a lucid dream?

Thank you in advance!

Pick your poison, many people experiencing OBE while awake experience both bodies at once rather than complete separation from the body. Assuming you were already asleep, you could experiencing something like this in NREM sleep.

The LD vs. OBE is one of those never ending debates. Here's what I have found in my experience. All my OBEs happen at the top of the dream cycle, usually around 10-15 minutes after falling asleep; whereas the vast majority of my LDs happen at the end of the cycle. As far as LDs, this is probably because for me they tend to happen when in a normal dream I realize I am dreaming, and normal dreams happen in REM near the end of the sleep cycle.

Because the OBEs for me happen at the beginning of the sleep cycle, I am not "out of it" at all. I can partake of that experience and still be aware of data my waking senses are getting. For example, I might be conversing with an entity in the OOB experience and at the same time hear my wife lightly snoring or turning over in bed. I find this insanely distracting as it tends to pull me out of the OBE.

Anyway, the split consciousness thing is common, but can be weird and therefore can make it difficult to remain stable. I've never experienced split consciousness in LDs, which, of course, proves nothing. It would not surprise me to find that it is common for some people to experience that.

Dreaming can occur outside of the REM phase but more often and vividly in it. I do not recognise any distinction between OOBEs and lucid dreams. To me it is all lucid dreaming. If one separates from the body from a waking point and with no perceived lapse in consciousness, then this is a WILD which includes the illusion of exiting the body.

Even a DILD can be deemed to be an "out-of-body experience" in the sense that it is also dissociative. In fact, even ordinary dreams can be thought of as being OOBEs lacking consciousness because they too are dissociative.

The reality of the phenomenon is this: there is no real separation from the body - only the emulation of it in our active imagination in a hybrid state of mind characterised by the Gamma bandwidth of brain activity. When you separate from the body, you are already in a simulated world of your creation. It isn't separation... it is dream separation... dream movement...dream body...dream bed...dream physical body apparently sleeping (sometimes absent)... dream house... dream space... distance... objects... everything. Conclusion: consciously exploring a dream world.

My advice: pick no poison and reflect on what you experience epistemologically.

I tend to think of waking life as an experience in the mind with external impute and an OBE, Lucid Dream and what ever other terms are used as an experience in the mind with internal impute.

scorpia13 wrote: I never manage to actually get up and walk around

You gotta work on that. I am familiar with becoming lucid while in bed and I have to wonder if I am asleep or not because it can seem very real at the time. Just the other day, sometime in the night between dreams, I felt the familiar body vibrations that precede a lucid dream experience. Then it ended and I was still in bed with my eyes closed and wondering if I was asleep or not. This has happened enough times that I know what to do now. I got up and looked around and did a reality check. It didn't take much. I saw my brother laying on the ground nearby and I haven't seen him in a month so I knew immediately! It was very vague however with not much detail and dimly lit. I experimented with various ways to make it more stable and vivid and eventually I was in a vivid lucid dream.

I don't think it is literally 'Out of Body', but it can feel that way at the very beginning because you literally have to get out of the bed were you know you are asleep.

And about a year ago before I became more aquainted with this feeling and more proficient at it, I once did feel like there were 2 of me! As I exhaled through my nose, I felt the 'other me' breathing on my neck behind me. It's a weird sensation and I still wonder why our minds think there are 2 of us sometimes...

Perhaps it is all that we have learned and have come to expect about OBE's that creates the illusion and it actually doesn't have to be that way.

HAGART wrote: I felt the familiar body vibrations that precede a lucid dream experience. Then it ended and I was still in bed with my eyes closed and wondering if I was asleep or not.

I wonder what would happen if I keep my eyes closed, but know full well that I am not awake and only in a 'dream bed'? I should try that next time and experiment with that.

Thank you for all your replies! They are informative and helpful.

HAGART: "I wonder what would happen if I keep my eyes closed, but know full well that I am not awake and only in a 'dream bed'? I should try that next time and experiment with that."

I think you just wake up? This is the reason why I can't stay in the dream and I did it the first 2 times I lucid dreamed. I'm not sure if that would be the same for you though since you've had experience before, but please share what you do find when you try it!

scorpia13 wrote: I think you just wake up? This is the reason why I can't stay in the dream and I did it the first 2 times I lucid dreamed. I'm not sure if that would be the same for you though since you've had experience before, but please share what you do find when you try it!

I think I know what would happen and come to think of it it has happened to me before. Without opening my dream eyes and looking around I would instead sense other things with my other senses. But they would be 'dream senses'. That would explain the strange sounds, voices, and entities that pull on my bed sheets and all those other strange sleep paralysis symptoms I have had before without opening my dream eyes. It's all starting to make sense now for me.

If you do wake up, I think it is just a lack of experience in maintaining that state of mind whether your dream eyes are open or not. But with a mind still active and wandering, it will always create some sort of stimulus to sense. And although non-physical it can feel very real.

Summerlander wrote: there is no real separation from the body - only the emulation of it in our active imagination in a hybrid state of mind characterised by the Gamma bandwidth of brain activity. When you separate from the body, you are already in a simulated world of your creation. It isn't separation... it is dream separation... dream movement...dream body...dream bed...dream physical body apparently sleeping (sometimes absent)... dream house... dream space... distance... objects... everything. Conclusion: consciously exploring a dream world.

What you write is certainly a viable hypothesis, but I don't think it's as nearly conclusive as you seem to suggest. I'm not pre-comitted to any theories and always go with direct experience where I can. If someone is pre-comitted to the idea that consciousness is the result of brain activity, then they have to take your stance by necessity, not by conclusion. We can't, after all, have consciousness "separating" from its source!

White washing it, though, produces two problems. First, further investigation is stifled. That's just bad form. Reminds me of the classical physicist who, before Michelson-Morley, told a student that everything was done and the only real reason to become a physicist was to fill in the details. We all know how that went!

Second, the differences observed in direct experience are lost in the wash. As an example, I offer this. Early on, back in the early to mid-nineties (I realize I am dating myself here, but that's ok ,Im a cheap date), I began exploring these episodes that seemed different from LD. I found a number of things that were repeatable. The most important among these was that there was a a zone I called a buffer zone. Here is how it manifested.

First, I find myself in bed vibrating. This is the sign I can make an exit. When I do, I am, 99.9% of the time, in my bedroom next to my bed. In this situation my vision may or may not be clear. I learned pretty quickly that the best thing to do is get away from my point of origin. Obviously this doesn't mean a distance in space, so maybe we can call it a psychological distance. In any case, it's represented as moving in space. I move out of the bedroom, down the hall, and usually go outside.

Everything is nearly exactly like it is in waking experience. All the same houses are there. All the same cars, etc. I made as careful of observations as I could. Was my neighbor's front door the same color? Yes! Was that tree in the front yard of the guy across the street? Yes! Was that potted plant on my porch there? Yes!

I did this as thoroughly as I could and each time everything was so similar it might as well have been the waking world. Additionally, if I did this at night, it was always night in the projection. If I did this during an afternoon nap, it was always day. Now, none of this means much so far, since we can chalk it up to expectation.

But, I also found that this zone always gave way; that is, no matter what I tried, I could not make it last for very long. Eventually one of two things would happen. I would either find myself back in bed with no loss of consciousness during the transition, or I would transit to yet a third state that was more along the lines of a lucid dream. My familiar house and neighborhood would give way to a completely different experience. I might find myself in an unfamiliar town, or in a forest, or a strange house with other unfamiliar people.

This transition was different than finding myself back in bed. Most of the time I didn't lose consciousness, but sometimes I would, but usually only briefly. Additionally the transition often represented itself metaphorically. I might find myself in a maze. After solving the maze I would then transit to the third state. Or, I might pass out where I was standing,find myself in darkness, but fully conscious. When the darkness cleared I would find myself in the LD like third state. Other times, individuals would appear that would help me make the transition.

Here are some interesting characteristics of the buffer zone:

1.) The buffer zone was repeatable, I could go there again and again.

2.) The buffer zone was nearly always the first experience (but didn't have to be, sometimes going straight to the third state).

3.) The buffer zone was a near perfect representation of waking life.

4.) The buffer zone was much more difficult to stabilize, hold, and handle than the succeeding third state. OK, so there's that. This was all early on, before the internet became what it is. I knew no fellow lucid dreamers or read any books that talked about this buffer zone. A number of years later, Robert Bruce came out with his book. I was amazed to find that he talked at length about this buffer zone. He called it the Real Time Zone, but many of the characteristics he discussed were ones I had verified for myself.

How do we explain this? Lucid dreaming is a human capacity. As such, we would expect to find individauls who spontaneously have a lucid dream without knowing such a thing is possible. The literature is chock full of such examples. This is different, though. This is a structure within that capacity that many have come to know. It might be true that most only verified after finding out about it, but my experience shows that doesn't have to be the case.

Anyway, I find it more than a little interesting. Sorry for the super long post!

HAGART wrote: I think I know what would happen and come to think of it it has happened to me before. Without opening my dream eyes and looking around I would instead sense other things with my other senses.

This is interesting. I have a list of experiments to do in LDs that I keep. When I think of a good one, I put it on the list. This one is on the list. I want to try laying down, shutting off my senses, and see what happens. The problem is I can never think of what's on the dang list, or I always feel like I'd be wasting a perfectly good LD!

You still haven't proved anything, Hagart. Just because Robert Bruce comes out with a hypothesis that happens to resonate with one or more than one of your experiences doesn't validate the notion of "buffer zones".

There are, in fact, a number of ways in which what you just described can be interpreted - not just from a mystical point of view but also a neurological one. People have numinous experiences all the time and yet that does not mean that something divine is truly at work or evidence the existence of spiritual/astral planes.

There is a false assumption in your claim here regarding my take on things, particularly where science is concerned. I don't adhere to hypotheses. I don't hold mere ideas to be true and I am not inclined towards materialism because it seems more attractive or because it is some dogma that has been unfairly ingrained in my mind.

As much as some people out there like the idea of debunking the scientific method, I'd like to say something here...

Science is not committed to the idea that the mind equals the brain or that there is no afterlife or even that materialism/physicalism is true. That is a misconception. In fact, science has considered both physicalism and vitalism as it has always been open to whatever is in fact true.

If it were true that ectoplasm or some unknown substance (or something that we don't yet understand) could dissociate from the physical body, then that would be part of our growing scientific understanding about reality. If such existed and interacted with physical matter, then it would have been discovered by now (like dark matter - nobody has ever seen it but we can see what it does in space and we are close to finding it) and there are a number of ways in which it could have been discovered. So far, they managed to find one of the most elusive bosons in quantum physics which gives everything its mass and yet no trace of that which is purported by many religiously or spiritually inclined individuals to be the source of life and consciousness (or, in the versions, the root of all existence).

To add to that, there are very good reasons to think that consciousness arises from the brain in all its complexity and that consciousness exiting the body or even surviving death is simply not true. This is not based on hypothesis, it is based on scientific theory and observations (check the difference between the two if you are not familiar with this). The scientific community have drawn their inclination towards materialism from over a century and a half of neurology. If you damage areas of the brain, you will lose mental faculties. You can cease to recognise faces, forget your name, the names of animals and yet remember the names of certain objects, lose some memories, lose the power of speech, lose the concept of words, lose subjectivity or even lose consciousness indefinitely while you are still alive. Everything about your mind can be lost by damaging the brain. And yet, some people still think that when you damage the whole thing at death you can really exit the physical body with all your faculties intact, recognise deceased relatives and communicate with them with words, telepathy and whatnot!

How do we explain this? Lucid dreaming is a human capacity. As such, we would expect to find individauls who spontaneously have a lucid dream without knowing such a thing is possible. The literature is chock full of such examples. This is different, though. This is a structure within that capacity that many have come to know. It might be true that most only verified after finding out about it, but my experience shows that doesn't have to be the case.

Have you heard of a double-blind experiment in science? Nothing like that has occurred in your case and you certainly show no understanding of how fair trials are conducted. Again, what you described proves nothing. Just like people who have never heard of OOBEs CAN have one because their brains are quite capable of creating dissociative states - like an anomalous thalamic function can be triggered by a slight alteration in sleep patterns and create the sensation of floating which subsequently forces the brain to concoct a botched-logical environmental scenario (i.e. floating near the ceiling looking down at where the body was and seeing it in a bedroom simulation which might not be that accurate given such short notice and the unusual cerebral activity) - one can also experience a series of events which happen to coincide with those of another sentient being who also has a similar brain (same species), same capabilities and has already labelled them and coloured them with his views and according to his beliefs and published them in an esoteric book. :mrgreen:

Which leaves you looking somewhat unoriginal and lacking imagination. Why not figure out your own definitions of what you experienced instead of just taking what somebody else said at face value when it doesn't even hold any water? The author himself has already been influenced by much mystical literature and has used much of the same belief-centric terms whilst coming up with some of his own. If indeed your experiences correlated with reality, have you ever considered that you may have a photographic memory instead or visiting some "real-time zone" or whatever he calls it? You see where I'm coming from? Why not give the brain credit in creating virtual realities in light of scientific evidence?

The only thing that can be claimed with certainty, as it has already been scientifically demonstrated when it comes to dissociative experiences during sleep - besides the awesome power of our minds (much of which lies unconscious) - is in the following diagram:

Image

In light of the evidence and my own experience, I can confidently say that there is no real out-of-body state in its literal sense, no further than an illusory sensation, and no journeying to other planes of existence either, and those who claim that such really happens, well... the ball is in their court to prove it to the rest of the world (and I fear that you are in the same league as those who claim that fairies and unicorns exist because they have been sighted). So far, I have only seen the conscious experience of virtual realities of the mind and the potential to lucidly access subconscious content amongst other things which can be life-enriching if applied correctly.

I'm sorry to be blunt, Hagart, but I've been where you are... well, not quite because I was more inquisitive and scientifically inclined. Trust me, I was open to the notion of astral projection and wanted to see for myself what all the fuss was about years ago. I'm serious, I was open to it. What I found was something entirely different. Pragmatically, I only see the extent of which I have described in this post. I also deal with many experienced and serious volunteers and coordinate experiments for future publishing at the OOBE Research Center with Michael Raduga - so I am previleged to have a great perspective on things and know what I'm talking about. I'd also be cautious about the astral defence techniques to ward off negative entities that Bruce promulgates in his site and literature. More frightening is his affiliation with crackpot pseudo-scientist Thomas Campbell. Be careful with cults like this under the guise of "science".

Summerlander wrote: You still haven't proved anything, Hagart.

I think you are addressing me, not Hagart! In fact, I thought Hagart was more or less agreeing with you. I like the post though, and will respond in more detail later.

Summerlander wrote: There is a false assumption in your claim here regarding my take on things, particularly where science is concerned. I don't adhere to hypotheses. I don't hold mere ideas to be true and I am not inclined towards materialism because it seems more attractive or because it is some dogma that has been unfairly ingrained in my mind.

I don't believe you do either, or you wouldn't be so open to dreaming. Let's face it, the vast majority of science types, along with the general public, chalk it all up to "overworked" neurons, or a brain cut loose from logic as the personality withdraws. I based my statement you are pre-committed on the statements you made in our discussions here and elsewhere:

Summerlander wrote: Consciousness is the epiphenomenon of functioning parts of the brain

Kill the brain and consciousness will cease to be permanently

consciousness is nothing but a brain state

Obviously, if someone makes these statements flatly, it would seem they are, in fact, committed to the idea, scientifically grounded or not, that consciousness arises from the brain. If that is the case, then consciousness could never be apart from the activity of the brain. Thus there would be a tendency to shy away from any possibility that says otherwise.

Now, you may not dogmatically adhere to that idea with no chance of changing your mind, but the reality is that it colors the pursuit anyway.

Summerlander wrote: Science is not committed to the idea that the mind equals the brain or that there is no afterlife or even that materialism/physicalism is true. That is a misconception. In fact, science has considered both physicalism and vitalism as it has always been open to whatever is in fact true.

If it were true that ectoplasm or some unknown substance (or something that we don't yet understand) could dissociate from the physical body, then that would be part of our growing scientific understanding about reality.

Herein the materialist commitment does indeed expose itself! Why does it have to be a substance or some "thing"? If it's not a substance, then we are doing nothing more than barking up the wrong tree as well as missing other possibilities altogether. I realize quantum physics has moved away from matter as foundational, but they've only moved toward consciousness as the basis!

Summerlander wrote: If you damage areas of the brain, you will lose mental faculties. You can cease to recognise faces, forget your name, the names of animals and yet remember the names of certain objects, lose some memories, lose the power of speech, lose the concept of words, lose subjectivity or even lose consciousness indefinitely while you are still alive.

But this certainly doesn't prove that consciousness cannot be separate (personally, I like the term awareness as it's much more free of baggage, and I often switch back and forth, just know I use them equally). One could easily argue that a damaged brain can now not serve the purpose of the awareness operating through it, that a damaged brain is a sort of limited vehicle for that awareness.

Summerlander wrote: Have you heard of a double-blind experiment in science? Nothing like that has occurred in your case and you certainly show no understanding of how fair trials are conducted. Again, what you described proves nothing.

Just so you have a little more about me, I have a degree in Physiology and Cell Biology. I considered myself widely read and understanding in the sciences in general. While physics is my weak point, I have nevertheless read more about it that I care to admit. I do know what a double-blind is, and I certainly wasn't describing one or inferring that I was! Nor was I saying it proved anything at all! It proves nothing, which is why I didn't say, "I find it more than conclusive". I said, "I find it more than interesting".

My point was that early on I was dreaming in isolation. There was no internet, and very few books to get my hands on to read about or understand the experiences of others at the time. I independently observed and investigated this buffer zone long before his book. When his book came out he, evidently, had observed a very similar phenomenon with very similar properties. I find that interesting! That's all. Now it may not be enough for a rigorous experiment, but what do I care? I'm not out to prove anything. I'm out to understand the nature of my direct experience, and I will gladly go down many pathways and see what they have to offer to that end.

Summerlander wrote: Which leaves you looking somewhat unoriginal and lacking imagination. Why not figure out your own definitions of what you experienced instead of just taking what somebody else said at face value when it doesn't even hold any water?

You seem to have the idea that I'm some kind weak-minded sap. I guarantee you you've got the wrong idea! As I've said before, direct experience is my first trusted guide. The scientists love their concepts, and the religionists their dogma. I guess you could say I like my understanding free of both, if it's possible.

Summerlander wrote: In light of the evidence and my own experience, I can confidently say that there is no real out-of-body state in its literal sense, no further than an illusory sensation

Awesome! Really, I mean that! But as you said, this proves nothing. These are merely YOUR concepts and ideas, they can hardly be said to be even close to conclusive.

Summerlander wrote: and those who claim that such really happens, well... the ball is in their court to prove it to the rest of the world

If that is what they are trying to do, then absolutely. Again, I'm not out to prove anything, I'm out to see if I can come upon my own concept-free, direct understanding. Of course, to communicate concepts are necessary, and they can get us into trouble.

Summerlander wrote: so I am previleged to have a great perspective on things and know what I'm talking about.

Again, awesome! And, again, I mean it! Personally, I've been through all the science. I've been through all the spiritual literature. I've been through all the kooky, entertaining nonsense you can find. And you know what? I still don't know a damn thing! It's all one big, beautiful mystery. Not only that, I've discovered that the only thing I know with absolute certainty is that "I Am", all the rest is mere concepts that in turn need other concepts for their support, but I've found that the awareness that everything appears in needs no support of any kind, and lies behind everything.

And know that I take nothing personally, even being called unoriginal, and lacking in imagination. That's actually not so bad considering what I've been called! In fact, if we were near each other, I bet we would be fast friends with many late nights of lively conversation. Last, I hope you'll pardon my propensity to push the buttons of science-minded individuals. It's just beyond my ability to resist!

P.S re: Tom Campbell. I'd never heard of him until someone posted that link on the other forum. I went over to his forum to see what they had to say. I noticed you were outlawed!

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Thank you for your reply and I guess I did address the wrong person in my last post. I'm using a phone at the moment so apologies if I have made some errors.

I see you have your experience and you are certainly entitled to have your opinion if you feel that science is not conclusive on certain matters. But here's the thing. You don't always have to be a scientific expert to derive logic. If the life force is not a something, if it is "non-physical" as they say, how on earth does it interact with the physical? How can a soul move a body? And if such thing existed to move it, it could be measured and said to exist. You see the predicament? Why should science pursue that which seems less evident and forsake that which is more apparent and which supports the idea that we are biological machines?

Another misconception that you posted regarding physics and I'll take into consideration that you admitted physics is not your area of expertise. Quantum physics does not show in any way that consciousness is the basis for everything. This is something that pseudo-science has tried to promote as an idea and I fear such branch is akin to New Age and almost ridiculously creationist in the face of overwhelming solid evidence for evolution, the non-existence of life/consciousness in the early stages of the universe (as heavier elements didn't exist) and the undeniable fact that we are nothing but nuclear waste.

Subatomic particles are still things that can be measured and are part of the physical world however weird they behave. Evidence supports that consciousness is a phenomenon of the classical level of reality and the result of the integration of a complex neuronal network. Sure, everything occupies the quantum but the quantum roots are not sufficient in the propagation of consciousness, or "awareness" as you put it. Here's a question for you: Does a rock have awareness?

On the decoherence matter in quantum physics: it is important to make the distinction between "observation" and "measurement". Scientific observation is really a measurement and the act of measuring is an interaction in itself. Consciousness does NOT collapse an outcome in reality as pseudo-scientific Campbell et al proclaim. I recommend that you take heed of the real experts at CERN, many of which are due Nobel prizes. I also recommend that you read Brian Cox's The Quantum Universe for a good understanding on why quantum theory works, what exactly the Uncertainty Principle entails and why there is a lot of tripe out there regarding quantum mechanics.

Finally, yes, I was banned from Campbell's site because I had pulled up Campbell in a different group (Facebook) about the things he was preaching to the laymen which were dishonest including the usage of quotes which were deliberately twisted regarding the context in which they were used. For someone who is portrayed as a modern age "Buddha", he was extremely rude, aggressive and defensive (predictable reactions of a liar). I even joined the site to see if there was something I was missing but what I found was something more sinister to the likes of cultish peer pressure coming from Ted Vollers and the usual suspects. Did you know that Ted offered to take me back provided that I changed my stance on the matter? :D

That is why I was warning you about Bruce, too. You can be open-minded but don't let your brains fall out when targeted by a combination of ego-centric fantasies, psychological manipulation and advanced forms of hocus pocus that will never be taken at face value before real science. To me, staying away from the bull is progressive and will not hinder scientific progress in any way. There are many practical applications in quantum theory. It gave us the wonderful transistor-based technologies and soon we will have more sophistication in computers and television with the advent of quantum systems that take advantage of superpositions. The wonders of the quantum world... which are not magical, by the way, they're natural. :roll:

Thank you for this discussion. I still maintain that OOBEs and lucid dreams are part of the same state of mind. It's a phase state characterised by Gamma activity and combines two mechanisms: REM sleep and consciousness. That's why lucid dreaming is also known as "conscious dreaming". The evidence is, well, evident! LoL! :twisted:

[ Post made via Android ] Image

My point was that early on I was dreaming in isolation

Some very basic thoughts on this thread " I have not read it all so no head chopping please"

I have been dreaming (lucid) for a lifetime and like you it was in isolation for around 20 years before I knew what it was. During this time I wondered about a lot of things that were occurring and had to puzzle all this on my own and this is tempered with no beliefs in religion or no science background, just an inquisitive mind and a refusal to become a victim of my own fear of what was happening at the time.

My simple view after many years and most likely thousands of lucid dreams and OBE and any other term used it that it all occurs in our minds as this is the environment and place of dreaming. The scenes, states are made of experiences and void states of as I call them where there is simple existence without form are free of the baggage of life and so I called them voids many years ago and found this is the common term used.

I feel that some of the input for dreams could be external and played out in the dreamscape just like a radio receives we can receive energy and this could be quite common. My main point I guess is that all of this happens in a living body and past this is either belief or seeking of proof depending on open mindedness or faith. I have no issue with either and state my position as having no need to have a belief so I am neither for or against religions and my goal in lucid dreaming is to get past the playground and see what I can of interest. We are very limited by science and for all we know our science went in one direction at a point in time and we looking in the wrong places for answers, I dont know

May be a little of topic here but interesting thread

Peter wrote: I have been dreaming (lucid) for a lifetime and like you it was in isolation for around 20 years before I knew what it was. During this time I wondered about a lot of things that were occurring and had to puzzle all this on my own and this is tempered with no beliefs in religion or no science background, just an inquisitive mind and a refusal to become a victim of my own fear of what was happening at the time.

I never looked at finding my own way as a problem. In the end, it turned out to be a boon since I came across techniques on my own that are truly tailored for my leanings. I suppose one could say that it makes for slow going, but not having anything to gauge against, it didn't seem slow or fast, just what was happening.

I'm glad to see you apparently overcame your fear. Fear was never part of the picture for me. I don't say that in the way of a braggart, but because I found the adventure and exhilaration out shined any fear I might have had. I've had my share of terrifying adventures, but I have a "throw it to the wind" type of personality, so fear was never a problem for me.

Peter wrote: My simple view after many years and most likely thousands of lucid dreams and OBE and any other term used it that it all occurs in our minds as this is the environment and place of dreaming.

Yes, many dreamers have reached the same conclusion. The door is still open in my case. It would be easy to chalk everything up to the mind by taking on the necessary correlation that we are, in waking life, apparently unable to use it at all! I am no artist by any stretch of the imagination in waking life, but the architecture in my dreams makes Michelangelo look like a rookie! Mother nature has never made skies or forests that even come close to the sublime beauty of those that I experience in lucid dreams. And, as I am sure you can confirm, in dreams there are colors that simply have no physical correlate. This is definitive of nothing, but it still sits in the background as a big question mark for me.

Let's look at your statement above about mind a little closer. You don't seem to be the type who will throw a reference at me and force me to go read a treatise on quantum mechanics or biophotons so that I may educate myself (Summerland, I jest! I told you, I can't resist!)

I think it's very important that we understand what is meant by the term, "mind". We throw this word around as if it's understood by all, and more importantly, as if we ourselves have a very clear understanding of it. This is important because we say that mind seems to be with us in the dream state, so it is rather on topic.

Most people think of the mind as a container, of sorts, that holds all our thoughts, concepts, images, memories, and the like. Isn't this so? Isn't this your understanding of it? Your statement above seems to indicate that. You say, "in our minds", and describe it as a place and environment. Others say we can be "out" of our minds. So we do understand and treat the mind as if it's a place, a container.

An easy way to cut to the chase regarding this "container" idea is to do an experiment in our direct experience. We can easily put aside all the concepts, theories, and teachings of others and see for ourselves in our direct experience what's what.

Right now, see if you can hold two thoughts simultaneously in your mind. First, hold one thought. Really see that thought. Next, try to hold that same thought while bringing in a second thought, not only while holding the first thought clearly, but while holding the second thought with the same degree of clarity.

How did it go? If you performed the experiment honestly and genuinely, I bet your finding is that you really can't. Before another thought can be held "in" mind, the first must disappear. Maybe Summerland is right and I am weak-minded, but I don't think this is the case, and I think this is true for everyone. I'd be interested to know what your results are. My direct experience shows I cannot hold two thoughts simultaneously. You can repeat the experiment with images, concepts, or memories and I'd wager that the same is basically true.

(Images can be tricky. If I hold an image of a table, then attempt to bring in some other image, it at first appears it can be done. You need to really see if that's the case or if you are now simply holding a single image containing both elements. In any case, you will probably find the experiment convincing enough, even though you might have some degree of success.)

So what does this mean? It means that not only is the mind NOT a container, it is simply nothing more than whatever thought is currently arising! Period. It is not something other than that current thought, it IS that current thought. Seeing this clearly, it is obvious that neither the world, nor the dream world happen IN the mind, since the mind is not a container. If that's the case, where does our experience happen?

Finally I like your statement:

Peter wrote: my goal in lucid dreaming is to get past the playground and see what I can of interest

Yes! Exactly my goal as well. It is indeed a playground. But is that all it is? And do you see how the container concept of mind might lead many to think it is purely, and only a playground? In other words, it is fantasy "in" the mind, and mind is something I possess. Therefore, it is purely a playground "in" "my" mind and has no meaning or reality beyond that. But if mind is nothing more than the currently arising thought, we cannot draw that conclusion.

I alluded to what I think beyond this, in another forum, but, in any case, more investigation is warranted. And just to reiterate, I don't feel like discussions of this nature are off topic at all, but have direct bearing on lucid dreaming, even if they tend to be more philosophical and not everyone's cup of tea.

Another super long post. It wouldn't surprise me at all if you held it in your mind as, "blah blah blah" :)

danmc wrote: Yes, many dreamers have reached the same conclusion. The door is still open in my case. It would be easy to chalk everything up to the mind by taking on the necessary correlation that we are, in waking life, apparently unable to use it at all! I am no artist by any stretch of the imagination in waking life, but the architecture in my dreams makes Michelangelo look like a rookie! Mother nature has never made skies or forests that even come close to the sublime beauty of those that I experience in lucid dreams. And, as I am sure you can confirm, in dreams there are colors that simply have no physical correlate. This is definitive of nothing, but it still sits in the background as a big question mark for me.

Much of the human creativity that we see in the waking world comes from dreams anyway. They are an attempt to recreate the dream ideas. It is very simple: the mind is exposed to the real world and then it can recreate versions of it and expand upon these versions. It starts with simple models and these models evolve as the mind develops more connections until the models end up outdoing the reality that is perceived when we are awake. To use your terms, the imagination "stretches" even if you are not conscious of it and creativity can arise from the mishmash of already existent concepts. There are no flying pigs with wings but we can convey such concept in language and illustrate it with a picture - and yet, flying pigs don't exist (nor do fairies or unicorns but you can get them simulated in lucid dreams if you wish to see them as existent).

You also say that colours have no physical correlate... well, how do you know when we do not yet have full knowledge of all brain interactions? Also, can you look at the hardware inside a computer and identify the colourful picture of a beach? No, you can't. And yet, the software may display it.

On the intensity of lucid dreams which can outdo reality, consider this:

It’s worth mentioning up front that all of the sensations of the phase experience (OOBE/LD) are not only like those in the physical world, but are to a certain degree even more realistic in terms of sensory perception. At any rate, this is what is to be expected if we consider the phenomenon from a scientific point of view, as it turns out that all of the phase sensations are generated directly in the brain cortex, without having to travel the relatively long path along the nerves from the sensory receptors, a process that somewhat distorts reality during our day-to-day lives. It can be said that sensations in the phase are even more vivid than their waking life counterparts. They are more distinct and more intense, and can thus deliver extraordinary satisfaction, and this makes it possible to experience some events quite vividly – especially when it comes to pleasure, or even real pain. This applies equally to all of the five senses.

• Michael Raduga (obe4u)

I hope I got rid of that question mark for you...

danmc wrote: Most people think of the mind as a container, of sorts, that holds all our thoughts, concepts, images, memories, and the like. Isn't this so? Isn't this your understanding of it? Your statement above seems to indicate that. You say, "in our minds", and describe it as a place and environment. Others say we can be "out" of our minds. So we do understand and treat the mind as if it's a place, a container.

It's not a container. We are our brains. Destroy the brain and there is no mind. It is the brain as an organism that minds things. The brain is computerised. That is the only evidence we have. No "self" as an entity has ever been identified inside it. And no, there is no soul inside the pineal gland.

danmc wrote: Right now, see if you can hold two thoughts simultaneously in your mind. First, hold one thought. Really see that thought. Next, try to hold that same thought while bringing in a second thought, not only while holding the first thought clearly, but while holding the second thought with the same degree of clarity.

I can put three thoughts in one sentence and think about them as only one thought and bring in more if I have to whilst holding them as independent images on screens (isn't my mind wonderful and capable of creating any reality with all its resources!!!): My mother is sleeping, my sister-in-laws cat is eating, and I can see Orion's constellation in the sky (whilst seeing images of other thoughts in my mind)... :mrgreen:

danmc wrote: Maybe Summerland is right and I am weak-minded, but I don't think this is the case, and I think this is true for everyone. I'd be interested to know what your results are. My direct experience shows I cannot hold two thoughts simultaneously. You can repeat the experiment with images, concepts, or memories and I'd wager that the same is basically true.

My friend, I never said you are weak-minded, you're saying it. Whether a person can hold more than two thoughts in their heads or not, what does that prove? What is the point? I wouldn't even place a number on it as people are different. Some can multi-task, others can't. All of us can have thousands of thoughts in a few minutes and only be aware of some. Not everything is brought to consciousness, there is an older and "wiser" side of our minds, one that has been around longer than the one that sits on top of it. One that remains largely unconscious but thanks to phase states of the mind that give rise to lucid dreaming, we can tap into the hidden potential and all that has been learned but gone unnoticed.

danmc wrote: If that's the case, where does our experience happen?

The integration of electrochemical activity. Where else? Imagination if that takes your fancy. For example, regions of the brain associated with self-assessment, self-perception and the evaluation of thoughts and feelings have been found to become active when a person is lucid dreaming. Neurology has also shown us that different types of experience can be lost with brain damage. Also, a bee sees the world differently because it is a different species and its brain is very different from ours. And so do other animals for that matter. What are you getting at? Are you insinuating that dream reality happens objectively (before you do know that dreaming is not only beneficial but necessary for us) and that a schizo's hallucinations are real?

danmc wrote: Yes! Exactly my goal as well. It is indeed a playground. But is that all it is? And do you see how the container concept of mind might lead many to think it is purely, and only a playground? In other words, it is fantasy "in" the mind, and mind is something I possess. Therefore, it is purely a playground "in" "my" mind and has no meaning or reality beyond that. But if mind is nothing more than the currently arising thought, we cannot draw that conclusion.

You are all the thoughts that you've had so far.

danmc wrote: Another super long post. It wouldn't surprise me at all if you held it in your mind as, "blah blah blah" :)

Now this is something I agree with! :D

I have a very guarded use of words and its hard sometimes to get meaning into a post without it going sideways a little, when I say mind I more corectly mean internal experience - this is where it happens. This is where we see, hear, taste, smell etc not on the outside as that is where infomation comes from via out senses. In a dreamstate i feel there are at least 3 infomation flows, memory, blended memory and the other I have no name for yet. The parts of dreams that are beyond normal experience and becoming more common - the void and other light and energy experiences, I hesitate to call them dreams but we use the word dream or dream state (will I do) as a basic term for this other reality.

I art I see and colors that are alive more so that reflected light, I have no idea where they come from of how the art is created but would very much like to get it on canvas one day as it is unique and interesting. I have seen a lot of the great artists in gallerys and some of it is a tasteful blend and I like viewing it in the dreamspace.

I still puzzle over how we create thougth, like emotion being the end result not a pure state and to have a thought is a few levels deeper than the thougth itself and way ahead in real time as well. What part of me does this thinking and is that part a construct that has a more pure form, I sometimes think we are more that one awareness and dont understand our basic makeup and most of the time are existing in a very crude form of what we could be. Modern life destroys the quite reflective time we need to gain some understanding of what is around us and I also think that life itself is simply a gift and that is all. Beyond this we should find a passion and follow it.

I'm glad to see you apparently overcame your fear

This fear was after about a year of SP a few nights a week and it took a while to deal to this.

On thougths I feel it is 1, 2, 3 and so on, some people can hold and work and swap around very fast but it is still in a line, multitasking I used to joke is another name for confusion :lol:

If I read correctly noise is the only sense that can be truly multtasked with and I tried this by listening to 2 sets of music and one book using 3 devices and 3 sets of ear peices and it worked but again might just be the speed and buffer of my mind at work. As a side note it did create a very long lucid as in listening to new music the body creates some of the chemicals used to get lucid during the proccess of learning new music. I think this is why some of the biaural beats works in the first instance but then loses effect. (it has never worked for me)

LOL - off I go on a tangent once again

I can't help but be reminded of Summerlander's Venn Diagram from earlier, but instead, I place Danmc on one side and Summerlander on the other. And the whole debate is about some middle place where it overlaps. That is what it seems like to me. You guys are so similar, but overlap on a small area. I love debates and let's face it, you guys would not debate if you did not respect each other and I think you guys know it. You are friends, if not, quarrelsome brothers, but the debate must continue!

I have had... (I will not use the term OBE), but lucid-false-awakenings, but they are never the same as the waking world. There is always something askew. And when I read Danmc's account about the true to life realism of his, I actually thought he may have a photographic memory or something and Summerlander actually said the same thing.

But I wonder about this: How can science measure the 'mind'. (It could be 'consciousness' or 'awareness'. They are just words to describe that same thing). But is the 'mind' measurable? We can measure brain activity, but what about the 'mind'? Where does it exist? We truly are the universe perceiving itself (our brains and subsequent minds are composed of it) and it is hard to measure the TRUE universe when our minds are bound by the same laws that the universe follows. Do we need to define a new dimension to account for our 'minds'?

I am open minded and agree with both of you on many points. But when Danmc defied Summerlander's logic it made me think about all those people that believed the Earth was round even though the common ideology of the day explained that it was indeed flat. And whether right or wrong, I like someone who stands up for what they believe in. I am conveniently in the middle. I am constant mediator by nature, but wouldn't mind jumping into the fray with you two and then clanging beer steins together in a bout of quarrelsome, yet brotherly arguments.

I know what you mean, Hagart.

We continue to explore the brain and we have the more recent Christof Koch's research on identifying the neural basis of consciousness. Yes, consciousness is still a mystery but give scientists about a decade and we will know more. So far, Koch supports the integrated information theory of consciousness by Giulio Tonomy, an expert in the fields of neuroscience and psychiatry.

Tonomi formulated the theory on the premise that conscious states are marked by massive amounts of information. A simple example of integration is the fact that the colour and shape of objects are combined in our minds even though colour and spatial processing are localised separately in the brain. In his studies, he also uses the measure of "phi" to distinguish the different degrees of consciousness in individuals and we see that from the integration a multi-dimensional qualia space can arise.

It is also worth considering some of what is already observable: "Underlying this unity of consciousness is a multitude of causal interactions among the relevant parts of your brain. If areas of the brain start to disconnect or become fragmented and balkanized, as occurs in deep sleep or in anesthesia, consciousness fades and might cease altogether. Consider split-brain patients, whose corpus callosum—the 200 million wires linking the two cortical hemispheres—has been cut to alleviate severe epileptic seizures. The surgery literally splits the person’s consciousness in two, with one conscious mind associated with the left hemisphere and seeing the right half of the visual field and the other mind arising from the right hemisphere and seeing the left half of the visual field." More here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-theory-of-consciousness

Here's the equation for measuring consciousness from his integration theory for those who understand scientific gobbledygook - you can see the phi symbol at the start of the second equation: :ugeek: Image Another article: http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2202-5-42

A diagram for the glial cells for the thery: Image

And the fact that we are conscious of less than what we think should be considered. To me, this shows that consciousness is secondary and only emergent - it sits at the surface while its computerised roots are unconscious: Image

The studies go on and a few years of extensive work are predicted before they get to the bottom of it all but the theory maintains that consciousness does in fact arise from a physical system. Without that system, it is gone. But science does not adhere to dogmas, only facts supported by empirical evidence. The theory requires more empirical evidence, and, as we all know, scientific theories lead to falsifiable predictions until views are refined and we get to the bottom of what is in question.

I trust in science because it is not about beliefs. It is about observations, discoveries and always questioning reality. It is about learning about what is truly happening and really is the best method we've got. It always dispels tripe spouted out by the illiterate - especially where the mystical and esoteric are concerned. Not because it abhors concepts grounded on faith but because it keeps proving many of them wrong time and again with fair trials. A simple and perfect example is where we have gone from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Galilei as regards astronomy and cosmology. It was also science that showed us that the eclipse was not a sign from the gods but a very natural occurrence in space. The point is, I believe the same thing will repeat itself in studies of consciousness and the mind-body relationship.

In my opinion, consciousness is very much hyped by those who have a tendency to be biased by mystical worldviews and superstitions - generally seeing what is not there so to speak.

By the way, here is a quote from a book about lucid dreaming that I recommend as it contains a lot of scientific information - some of which may be outdated - but I have highlighted useful and currently applicable excerpts which support the "phase state" diagram I posted earlier - seriously, give the book a read:

"...Incidentally, it would seem more logical a priori to look for parallels, if not identity, between the neurophysiology of hallucinations and descending stage 1 deep sleep rather than REM, since by definition waking hallucinations begin from the waking state, as does stage 1 sleep, whereas REM phases normally arise from non-REM phases of sleep rather than from waking consciousness.

In conclusion, we suggest that the occasional appearance of paralysis in the various different hallucinatory states under consideration - lucid dreaming, false awakenings, ecsomatic experiences, and apparitions - supports the view that there is a degree of continuity between them. We further propose that the factor making for this continuity may be sleep in its various manifestations or phases.

In addition, we suggest that a characteristic that many examples of totally hallucinatory experience have in common is a 'paradoxical' combination of muscular relaxation with cortical arousal."

• Lucid Dreaming - The Paradox of Consciousness During Sleep (Celia Green and Charles McCreery)

By the way, Hagart, sorry for wrongly addressing you earlier! :D

Peter wrote: I have a very guarded use of words and its hard sometimes to get meaning into a post without it going sideways a little

I feel the sideways is good, not detracting. Dreams have that sideways quality to them.

Peter wrote: In a dreamstate i feel there are at least 3 infomation flows, memory, blended memory and the other I have no name for yet. The parts of dreams that are beyond normal experience and becoming more common - the void and other light and energy experiences, I hesitate to call them dreams but we use the word dream or dream state (will I do) as a basic term for this other reality.

I want to know more about this third flow, it really piqued my interest. Can you expand? Or point me to previous posts?

Peter wrote: I still puzzle over how we create thougth, like emotion being the end result not a pure state and to have a thought is a few levels deeper than the thougth itself and way ahead in real time as well

Yes. And don't you find it interesting that we always say "my" thought, like the personality is responsible for their generation? I am fascinated that this is the generally held belief, considering most people could never hold one thought to the exclusion of all others for even a single minute. Nor could they exclude all thoughts for that length of time. When we speak we have no idea how the sentence will end, even though it does. Even meditators will admit that even though thoughts lessen for periods of time longer than a minute, they always reappear at some point. i.e. thoughts come and go no matter what.

Yet, we still believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they are our thoughts. I'm not making a declaration that they aren't, just pointing out that given our rather weak ability to control them, the fact that we immediately jump to that conclusion id fascinating.

I also agree that all realized thoughts are in the past. I feel this is because the awareness that they appear to is only ever NOW, and itself never in the past (or future)

Peter wrote: On thougths I feel it is 1, 2, 3 and so on, some people can hold and work and swap around very fast but it is still in a line,

This is how it is for me, 1, 2, 3. For me realizing this came with the further realization that the mind is simply what ever thought is up in the order, not a box in which experience of any kind takes place.

And to answer Summerlander who asked what my point is, the point being that the integration of all the data in experience, whether internal or external, is happening somewhere else, the mind just being part of the data, not the integrator.

Peter wrote: If I read correctly noise is the only sense that can be truly multtasked with and I tried this by listening to 2 sets of music and one book using 3 devices and 3 sets of ear peices and it worked but again might just be the speed and buffer of my mind at work

And did you have the experience that knowing them all at once meant that you didn't know any particular channel with clarity? I'm going to try this over the holidays. And my experience with binaural beats is the same-- no effect. I found that all they did was interfere with my more tried and true techniques.

In fact, I've never had, unfortunately, much luck with aids of any kind. I did try Calea Z, and will again, but what I got was really, long, mundane dreams. their length was surprise to me. One that went on forever was about about looking for something that was lost. What a tedious dream that was! Good Lord, I do that in waking life with my damn keys!

HAGART wrote: There is always something askew

Don't get me wrong here, there are almost always anomalies, but they are so incidental in relation to what is "replicated", they don't bother me at all.For example, in one episode, everything was pretty much in place in my living room, except that stacked on a table near the window was a pile of tupperware containers, which were not there in waking life. In another, in my neighbor's yard there was an agave type of plant, maybe four feet high, "growing" near his front window. It absolutely glowed with an inner gold colored light. It was stunning. These are just a couple of examples, but anomalies appear in every episode.

Again, though, I am sane enough to know that this doesn't PROVE anything. Again, it just piques my interest.

HAGART wrote: And when I read Danmc's account about the true to life realism of his, I actually thought he may have a photographic memory or something and Summerlander actually said the same thing.

Don't I wish! If you knew me, such a hypothesis would be laughable! If I had to chalk it up to some other possibility, it would be that awareness sees everything, personality no so much.

HAGART wrote: But when Danmc defied Summerlander's logic

What logic? I don't mean that as a joke. I mean, where? What are you referring to? I don't have a problem with Summerlander's logic, his premises maybe, but not his logic

People believed the Earth was flat. It's true that their direct experience seemed to indicate that. What I am saying is different. They took their expereince and turned it into a concept. I'm saying why believe in concepts at all? Certain concepts are practical, fire burns, be careful. But holding on to a concept to the point where it actually, most of the time, unknowingly, hardens and defines things in error is nothing but trouble! The hard part is unearthing them, the hard part is honestly seeing that what you thought was so true, was merely a belief underneath. Some of the beliefs we carry around around are insidious, and those at the bottom, the root beliefs, are practically unknown unless you really go after them.

The reason why people say "my thoughts" is because the ego has a tendency to claim that which does not arise from itself as its own. It like the ego is a company importing fairtraded products and branding them with its logo in order to sell it as its own...

Experience happens in the brain. It is not surprising that it is the most complex organ we know. We also think we have "free will" and yet, whether you look at cosmology from a deterministic or probabilistic point of view, free will cannot happen.

It has already been demonstrated in the lab that the brain areas involved in moving parts of our body light up before we become conscious of the decision to move. There are so many factors involved in processes that we are not conscious of which influence decision and yet the ego at the surface reasons, justifies and hijacks responsibility. It also likes to think of itself as being immortal - a more complex version of the survival instinct that lies at the core of the "lizard" brain and requires more feeling than thought.

There is will, but it is not free. It can never be free as it defies physicalist logic. What we can say is that, given how far the brain has evolved, it has become apparent that the body influences the mind and vice versa in a cycle that is also dictated by other elements of the natural surroundings.

Of course our language will reflect notions of free will and we may use it in our speech but that is only expressing the illusions of responsibility that we feel and which are applicable and conventional in the rule-based world that we live in. Recently, a study has even shown that the brain of conservativists differs from that of liberalists - which politicians didn't like. Things are not always what they seem.

It's funny how you have completely ignored my last post and continue to play the same notes no matter what. I expected you to at least refute some of the points I've made - unless you're about to?

I'm sorry but I find it extremely unscientific that you hold a hypothetical stance and claim it to be the right one without empirical evidence or valid points. If you had valid points, don't you think the experts would not be testing the integration theory by now?

Like I said before, if you claim dreams happen elsewhere and that a soul exists in the body, the ball is in your court to prove it in the face of overwhelming evidence against such notions. You don't just get to say this is true based on blind faith.

Out of curiosity, how old are you? Really, be honest...

[ Post made via Android ] Image

has the brain evloved or are we using our brain in better ways and for me this raises the question of what is using the brain. its that little step away from self that interests me and why I suspect we are more than one awareness and lucid dreaming is one way to understand and connect a little deeper

No, that would defy Darwinian evolution. The initial process that gave rise to life was random, but, once the organism formed, it became natural selection (or natural preservation as Darwin would like to call it). There is no intelligent design involved as much as creationists fancy the idea.

Also, not everything we do is for the best and we can suffer the consequences of our actions. What we can say is that we can learn from our mistakes, which is natural for our survival - like a pigeon can learn that humans can be sources of food and if they get used to such fulfilling perceptions, it can take them an awful long time to unlearn that if humans suddenly decide to stop giving food - they'll keep coming because memory taught them that. But a pigeon's brain is not as evolved as a human's so the birdies are excused.

Lucid dreaming is useful in that we can visualise (although it is more than visualisation) where we would like to be in the future. For example, you might find motivation to quit smoking if you want to be an old person full of energy in the future and you can create this future in the dream world and see how good it feels to reinforce the intention.

Likewise, the consumption of certain drugs can alter your brain chemistry, influence how you feel and think and complete change your behaviour. It isn't a novelty either that drugs or even brain damage can turn psychotic even the nicest of folks. It is our physical make-up and how it is influenced by the environment that determines who we are. Hell, even the suggestible state of hypnosis canmake a person forget things or believe they are someone else.

We see how brain alteration or fragmentation can make people lose their mental faculties and yet they still want to believe that at death they'll be able to see, hear and have the power of speech. It is not a novelty that people assign supernatural "explanations" to that which they don't understand - and granted that there is much to be learned about the brain - but once discoveries are made the cookie starts to crumble. It happens time and again.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

it gets interesting as if life is random then its possible we are the only form of life like us that exists, there may be the building blocks of life elsewhere but that is a big leap from life itself and the other random events that lead to the point where I can type on a laptop.

I am yet to be convinced that we life in any way after body death but also have had enougth experiences withing the dreamspace to say that there is a lot that I dont understand and cant say that we dont in some form. If some spark of energy lives like a radio signal that keeps going after the station is turned off then there is life but it needs defining in new ways. This is a big step down from some from of existence with awareness as is believed by a lot of people but it a reminant of a life and so is an interesting concept to me.

I just keep on keeping with my dreams and as always will see what I can find and so regardless of outcome it is a great adventure this inner world.

Summerlander wrote: It's funny how you have completely ignored my last post and continue to play the same notes no matter what. I expected you to at least refute some of the points I've made - unless you're about to?

Yes, that's the case. 1.) other people were chiming in, which was refreshing, so posts this morning went that direction. 2.) job, family, holidays, not much time at the moment. 3.) I did make a post to you this morning, a short one, before running out the door to visit relatives. Evidently I never hit the send button or something. Which is too bad because I had a really funny line in it!

Posts to you take some time because I want to avoid misunderstandings. Such as:

Summerlander wrote: you hold a hypothetical stance and claim it to be the right one without empirical evidence or valid points

I'm not claiming anything! In fact, I've said time and again that I don't know. For me the door is open. I feel like with you the door is slammed shut, at least the way you flatly make statements in which there is no possible way on earth you could ever know such a thing, either in the scientific sense or not. Statements such as when the brain dies so does consciousness (this was in my post this morning). These kinds of statements are decidedly unscientific. Science types always say "We know" when they should be saying "We think", or "We believe".

Summerlander wrote: Like I said before, if you claim dreams happen elsewhere and that a soul exists in the body, the ball is in your court to prove it in the face of overwhelming evidence against such notions. You don't just get to say this is true based on blind faith.

None of this paragraph is true in any way. Please link me to where I have used the word "soul". To my knowledge I have never said anything about a soul, especially in the sense you're claiming here, and I would be surprised to find out I did. And if I have made a definitive statement that dreams happen elsewhere without a qualifier then it was in haste. My point with OBE has always been that I don't know, but my experience with dreams tilts me toward that it may be a possibility, but that's all.

Anyway, I'll get to all that and more from your other posts. I really do enjoy discussions such as this, but it's hard writing everything. We'd cover more in a hour of conversation then in five days of back and forth like this. Holidays are going to kill my time, though, so be patient. I'm definitely not the kind to only say and not respond.

Summerlander wrote: Out of curiosity, how old are you? Really, be honest...

Why would I lie? You sound like you're trying to pigeon-hole me. I'm 51. And I'd be interested to know why you think I wouldn't be honest.

Based on over a hundred years of neurology and in the face of overwhelming evidence, even though not conclusive, I can make a posteriori assumptions that an afterlife is very likely to not be the case.

By the way, I only asked how old you are because it isn't the first time I get 15 year-olds who think they've got it all sussed, but I am glad your age is the reverse.

I am also glad that you guys have brought the focus back to the topic. You see, as far as I can tell, when we use our methods to induce dissociative experiences, we are bringing ourselves to experience the world of lucid dreaming, and that's all it is.

Seen as lucid dreaming makes you feel like you are somewhere else other than lying in bed, isn't it logical to think of them as out-of-body experiences too? Not that they really happen elsewhere because there is no evidence of that, but, what I mean is that the experience is dissociative in the same manner that the OOBE is.

Now, since we can all agree that in a lucid dream anything can be experienced because the mind is the limit, isn't it feasible that the lucid dream state can realistically emulate the separation of consciousness from the body?

I would also raise the same point on epiphanies being experienced which make a lucid dreamer think there is more to consciousness than meets the eye. Heck, I've felt like I knew something profound about reality when I was younger and tripping on salvia and psilocybin.

The point is that we all have fertile imagination and a mind with the power of creativity as the mishmash of thoughts come together and many associations are made in our heads that we are not even conscious of. It is worth keeping in mind that the brain tells porkies too and this can effect our perception.

All in all, I see a lot of people not giving their brain potential enough credit as they so readily dismiss their experiences as originating from their subconscious and prefer to credit supernatural powers as being the real authors.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: You also say that colours have no physical correlate... well, how do you know when we do not yet have full knowledge of all brain interactions? Also, can you look at the hardware inside a computer and identify the colourful picture of a beach? No, you can't. And yet, the software may display it.

Color, like everything else, happens in experience. In dreaming, I have seen colors that I have never experienced in the waking state. Just another bit that makes you go hmmm. I'm not laying it down as something that suggests game over.

Summerlander wrote: I hope I got rid of that question mark for you...

First, if you really know this guy, urge him to do something about his website. Good Lord! He's probably doing it himself, so I have to give him credit, but as a web programmer by trade, it makes me crazy. Very difficult to really find anything. I'd never heard of him until you mentioned him in another post. I downloaded a pdf, but, like so many LD sites, it was all about technique.

As to the quote you pulled, for me it's neither here nor there. Just seems specualtive. If I read it right, he is suggesting that the added length of the optic nerve, or its correlate in whatever physical sense we are talking about, explains why LDs can be so hyper-realistic in comparison. This is a bit like saying that a giraffe has a weaker metabolism than a mouse because the input is so much further away from the digestive system where the action takes place, when, in fact, a mouse has a weak metabolism in comparison to a giraffe. I mean, it's not a bad hypothesis, but it doesn't remove the question mark. I'm still left with hmmm.

Summerlander wrote: It's not a container. We are our brains. Destroy the brain and there is no mind. It is the brain as an organism that minds things. The brain is computerised. That is the only evidence we have. No "self" as an entity has ever been identified inside it.

It looks like we are in agreement that "self" or "ego" has no reality. You can't find it in the brain (I'm interested in how it is you look for it there), and I can't find it in experience except as a concept taken to be true.

Summerlander wrote: And no, there is no soul inside the pineal gland.

There's the word "soul" again. It turns out that it is only you that have used that word, and on numerous occasions, while I have yet to utter it once.

Summerlander wrote: My friend, I never said you are weak-minded, you're saying it

Yes, I put words in your mouth, you never said it (but you were thinking it!). But they are my words, apologies if anyone was misdirected. And, of course, "soul" is yours, not mine.

Summerlander wrote: Whether a person can hold more than two thoughts in their heads or not, what does that prove? What is the point?

The point being that the integration of all the data in experience, whether internal or external, is happening somewhere else, the mind just being part of the data, not the integrator. This recognition is for me a link in the chain, not the chain.

Summerlander wrote: You are all the thoughts that you've had so far.

Who or what is the "you" in this sentence. I take it you don't mean self or ego, since as you indicated above it has no reality.

Summerlander wrote: who understand scientific gobbledygook

Now here's something I can agree with!

The history of science is a history of starting with parts and extrapolating backwards to a whole. It's more than ironic that science insists on a world of parts, but is seeking a whole, unified theory to explain it.

Unfortunately, to make a fair assessment of all the references you keep throwing out at me, I would have to read them all, and then further understand them in terms of the researcher's overall goals and stance, that's just not going to happen. But whether you choose to believe it or not, I've read more than you can shake a stick at. I've given all that up. As I've mentioned, I'm sticking with what is concrete- my own direct experience.

I will say this about what I can glean from the bit you've posted here, and this applies in a general way. I do believe it to be one side of the coin, this "whole from the parts" idea. What science neglects, first because the notion is viewed as suspect, and second because they begin with suspect premises of their own, is the other side of the coin, i.e. the "parts from the whole". I will throw some references out to you, but like me, you probably won't read them, nor do I expect you to. See the mathematical biologist Robert Rosen. See the German zoologist Wolfgang Schad. Above all see the scientific writings of Goethe. Goethe turns the whole scientific method on its head. He eschews theories and instead finds that the phenomenon in itself tells you all you need to know when it comes to seeing the parts in the whole.

Summerlander wrote: But science does not adhere to dogmas, only facts supported by empirical evidence.

I wrote a response here, but I will send back channel as this is getting of topic.

Summerlander wrote: The reason why people say "my thoughts" is because the ego has a tendency to claim that which does not arise from itself as its own. here are so many factors involved in processes that we are not conscious of which influence decision and yet the ego at the surface reasons, justifies and hijacks responsibility.

I 100% agree with this. See, we're not so far apart. We agree on all kinds of things. I may diverge a little here, because for me the independent ego is merely a concept taken to be true and concepts aren't "things" that have intents and and can do things like claim, reason, or justify.

Summerlander wrote: By the way, I only asked how old you are because it isn't the first time I get 15 year-olds who think they've got it all sussed, but I am glad your age is the reverse.

Whether 15 or 51, what does that matter as long as the substance stands on its own? But I am rather offended that you think I write like a 15 year old in style! I jest. There are a lot of young people on this board, which I think is really awesome. I wish I had a forum like this at 15. I don't even think I knew what a lucid dream was at that age. But let's face it, young people, a period now and again, a separation of paragraphs, a capital letter to start a new thought wouldn't kill you, and it would go a long way in keeping my eyes from bleeding. Now, Get off my lawn!

Summerlander wrote: Now, since we can all agree that in a lucid dream anything can be experienced because the mind is the limit, isn't it feasible that the lucid dream state can realistically emulate the separation of consciousness from the body?

Feasible, certainly, final word, not by any stretch of the imagination. My so-called OBEs have a consistently, and completely different flavor than my LDs. This is NOT definitive, IS "subjective", but still leaves the door open. The length of the optic nerve explaining a fairly exact replica isn't going to cut it for me. My experience and experiments, especially in situ, rather than remembered, are very compelling, even if not always positive, that something besides a LD may be happening. I mean, as long as the categorization is broad enough you can put it all together, we might as well throw the waking state into the mix in your diagram. But I am interested in the details as much as the generals. I abhor white washing. This may be a bent of character, but it is what it is. So, as Peter says, I'll just keep investigating.

Finally,

Summerlander wrote: Here's a question for you: Does a rock have awareness?

No, but, then, neither does a human. In my view awareness isn't something you possess, it's what you ARE. Was that the sound of your cell phone hitting the wall as you shout, "My god, how can anyone believe such tripe!"

Merry Christmas Summerland! And to everyone here, happy holidays!

The young members here have the conviction of youth and that's awesome if you dont let ego get in the way. LOL - they may just be right....

danmc - two links for you, one is an interview on the Lucid dream exchange and re-posted on the main site here and while rather long ventures into some interesting dreams about energy and light and the second is a conversation captured by another dreamer and she sent this to Robert and he placed it in the latest Lucid dream exchange as well.

http://www.dreaminglucid.com/dreamspeak.html Dream Speak - Interview with Peter Maich http://www.dreaminglucid.com/lde/lde1_3.pdf Energy bodies - A conversation with Peter Maich

Best wishes to all and safe travels is you are on the road this holiday break

Peter

Again, a certain someone didn't read my posts or they'd know why a dream can present hues that are not seen in reality. The anti-scientific stance doesn't help either and some misconceptions there about Goethe, but there you go, I'm enjoying Christmas by the way and have made Santa real enough for my kids. LOL!

I find your age argument a little oxymoronic. On one hand you say there are some awesome 15 year-olds and on the other you feel offended by me thinking that you write like one. Which brings me to the next point. You are now claiming that you can read my thoughts and know how much I've read in a lifetime? Lol!

Ok. I'll leave you with your agnosticism, not a bad stance, but my advice is not to so readily ignore established scientific facts because you'd rather only trust your own experience. Imagine that one day you suffer a chemical imbalance and your brain lies about what is really out there! You'd be isolated.

Think about that and also consider giving credit where credit is due... All those Nobel prizes weren't for nothing. Btw, a site mostly about technique and what's practical can only be doubly useful especially when verified through experience. No room for empty musing such as dreams or experience happening elsewhere other than the brain.

Happy Kwanza! Lol!

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: and some misconceptions there about Goethe

I don't think so. He is the absolute master at seeing the parts in the whole, which was the main point I was making. And while I said he eschews theory, that doesn't mean I am saying he eschews the Newtonian science of his time. He, saw it as one side of the coin.

Summerlander wrote: I find your age argument a little oxymoronic. On one hand you say there are some awesome 15 year-olds and on the other you feel offended by me thinking that you write like one

I said it was awesome that they are here, not that any of them in particular are awesome. I also JESTED I was offended that you think I write like a 15 year old in style, not substance My point being the substance stands on its own, regardless of age, but that doesn't mean I'm above making fun of someone who writes everything like a dang text message!

Summerlander wrote: You are now claiming that you can read my thoughts and know how much I've read in a lifetime?

I tried to find what you were talking about here, but couldn't.

Summerlander wrote: Imagine that one day you suffer a chemical imbalance and your brain lies about what is really out there!

This is probably already true!

Summerlander wrote: Think about that and also consider giving credit where credit is due

I am not anti-science. Would I have put four grueling years into getting a degree in the biological sciences if that was the case? Would I have continued on for years afterwards reading papers, following all the latest findings, etc? I have nothing against the science of thermodynamics. I love a cold beer! I do, however, have serious reservations about just how far a science based on measurement can go when it comes to understanding consciousness. (Also I will indeed send you that response I left out in my last post when I can. It will include some points on this)

Summerlander wrote: Btw, a site mostly about technique and what's practical can only be doubly useful especially when verified through experience.

I have nothing against technique. I found what he was putting forward rather unique in that department, actually. I was looking for a scientific paper on what we were talking about. I just had trouble because the site was a bit confusing to find things.

Summerlander wrote: Happy Kwanza!

Ha!

Also, I keep meaning to ask you. Is your nic "Summerlander" ironic? What's the story behind it, if you don't mind me asking.

The links led to a couple of very interesting reads, thanks. I didn't know you were a famous lucid dreamer. Move over, Swedenborg! ;)

I like reading about other people's adventures. They can put me into the LD feeling even while I'm awake sitting there reading. Just like reading/seeing Summerlander's temple dream the other day, I get this feeling, not anywhere near the intellect, but in the gut. It's a brief falling sensation that has within it that exhilarating feeling that comes when awakening to a lucid expereince.

Your energy experiences did prove to be intriguing as well. I myself haven't had that kind of thing very much. I have had occasions where I encounter shapes and sounds that are full of meaning. They have that quality you describe that is a bit like encountering precursors to concepts or thoughts, a single shape containing a whole concept, for example. I've also encountered objects and DCs that had an inner light, but nothing like the stuff you related in the interviews.

For me, most interesting dream episode you related was this one:

Peter wrote: I was observing these spots and got this rush or sensation of speed. I just went with it, scared but also curious. I was in a tunnel of light and moving at an unbelievable speed along it. There was no sensation of me with a body but I knew it was me being sucked along this tunnel and it seemed to go for a long time but may have only been a few seconds. The color was just pure, there was nothing I had ever seen that even came close to the purity of it. It was more like it was a living form than simply color. After this rush along the tunnel I exploded into a white light, just a massive blast of white light and, I think, along with a good loud bang in my head.

This immediately interested me as I have explored this tunnel, or something like it. I now intentionally encounter it and have had numerous episodes with it. I have a post about how I do that here:http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2888. In fact, I have come to the point where I almost overly rely on using it since it is so effective for me. This may not be a good thing since I am probably limiting myself in terms of a broader set of experiences that you and others seem to possess.

Is this your only encounter? The reason I find this so interesting is that, like the buffer zone I explored and reported in this thread, I now have another experience in which an independent source seems to describe the very same phenomenon with very similar properties. This isn't a scientific experiment (don't go off the rails, Summerlander), but you have to admit it makes you wonder, at least it makes me wonder, just what the heck is really going on. I mean, unless it's of the same nature as a Jungian archetype, it's uncanny that we would independently encounter a similar phenomenon and identify similar properties of that phenomenon if it didn't itself possess a nature "independent" of either of us.

LOL - just got lucky with some people taking an interest in some of my dreams.

I read you post and it seems its an entry style with awareness of the light or as you say heat and then putting yourself there. The putting of your energy and then your awareness following it to the dream if I have it correct is either easy or impossible, the instant of dream entry always amazes me if it is a WILD in some way. As you say the feeling of awareness from within the dream is almost a fall at the instant of being there and lucid.

That dream you quoted on was a WILD and was a long time ago, I chased that for years and had some similar but not as intense experiences with tunnels. I still get the rushing at times but the tunnels are different and I sometimes seem to be apart of them as much as I travel in or down them. I think over the years you skip some parts as they become familiar or they no longer are as important for getting lucid as they once were. There are times now that getting lucid by WILD is as easy as waking in the morning and other times its still very illusive and just wont happen.

There are a lot of questions about the states and dc's in the dreams as I think we create most of the dc (not all) and expect to see them in some form like us and so that is how they appear and the similar experiences must occur as we are pretty much all similar in nature and its only skill and experience and belief that move us forward and no matter what we are wired the same or close to the same so must have a lot of similar states and dreams.

I am great at knocking almost all belief systems and as I have said a lot I have no need to believe in religion or no need to not believe. I try to stay in no mans land with an open mind and hope this takes me further and If I have similar experience to say someone with deep religious beliefs then its the interpretation that differs not the experience and this gets interesting but can raise hackles in an online post.

I still feel the place of dreaming is in the mind, the energy that creates can come from many sources and the mind or this dreaming space is the next area for a major leap in understanding of "us" in some way. I have had enough encounters with dead friends over the years, some pre-cog and one encounter with a DC which I will post today that raise questions ( I am not even sure what questions :lol: ) but they are oddities beyond the normal dream. In saying this I am seeking to look past the dream so may be creating the likes of the last encounter, I dont know as I dont know the extremes or limits of mind. I do know that there is a creative process that is beyond normal awareness and that we can call this up and use this process or place or being if we put time and effort into seeking an understanding of how to do so. This more than dream content may be the most exciting part for me, to tap into this awareness and see what I can do and find

Hi, danmc, some good points made. I hope you all had a good Xmas and this has been a great debate. I don't the question about where the name "Summerlander" comes from.

When I officially started my practice (I have to put it this way because my first OBEs/LDs happened when I was a little boy) I thought that Monroe had every reason to believe that consciousness was really exiting the body. In fact, at the beginning of my practice my stance was similar to his.

One day I had a profound WILD where I separated into my dream abode and used a mirror portal to find myself in a land that words can barely describe. It was phenomenal and, well, spiritual. It was just the amazing visual information but also the curious sounds of flutes and birds singing. Everything was vibrant and harmonious.

I also saw cottages, well-groomed trees, an amazing river, a rainbow and a golden city. I wondered who lived in the cottages but didnt get a chance to check. When I woke I was disappointed that I could remain there for longer.

At the time I hadn't yet heard of the spiritual planes known as summerlands that some believe in. Then, about two weeks later I came across a book about the afterlife and it contained alleged communications with the dead through mediums. Even at that time I was a little sceptical and always with an inquisitive mind. Then, something struck a cord with me... In th

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Sorry, I'm using a phone and it's playing up. What I meant to say above was that I don't mind the question. Apologies for my previous post (look who's typing like a baby now).

To finish the story, something struck a chord with me in that book at the time. The dead were telling their loved ones that they were ok and that they were in a happy place. When asked to describe it they included "cottages", "rainbows", magical "forests" and exquisite architecture. You can imagine my surprise as I knew my own experience could not have been influenced by this material.

This led me to be more open to the astral projection concept as latter chapters of the book began to describe the nice afterlife realms as upper astral planes, plane of colour, or Summerland. When I decided to join a site called Astral Viewers I remembered my spiritual experience and thought that the dreamscape was indeed colourful and summery. So I decided to call myself Summerlander - soon, even some of my friends called me by this name.

However, the more I experienced lucid dreaming the more I found myself resonating with the views of Stephen LaBerge and Michael Raduga.

Despite my current stance, I still refer to that wonderful experience as my "Summerland experience". No harm done there. But I think that more likely than not that summerland was a product of my own mind.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

From the original posters description I dont think one can really tell what the double is.. just a dream or not. Id classify it as still a dream unless its more clearer on what is going on.

Anyway, the split consciousness thing is common, but can be weird and therefore can make it difficult to remain stable. I've never experienced split consciousness in LDs, which, of course, proves nothing. It would not surprise me to find that it is common for some people to experience that.

I experience some split consciousness in LDs eg may be laying in bed dreaming but at the same time aware of my physical body on the bed and whatever discomfort I have in it at the time. Its annoying as that split awareness thing with my physical body has pulled me out of many LDs.