|
|
|
|
|
by derefr
3079 days ago
|
|
> By definition a person knows when they are having a lucid dream or not. Do they? I mean, the qualia of "I'm having a lucid dream" might not have 100% overlap with the fact of having a lucid dream. Certain drugs can give people something they will describe as "a feeling of being very sure about things" without that feeling having any particular referent—whatever they think about, they tend to describe experiencing an "epiphany" about. (The subset of people who think tend to frame things through a lens of religious faith tend to describe this drug experience as a "religious experience", a "contact with the divine." Mostly, it seems, because they direct their attention to their religious beliefs, and end up having a feeling of sureness about those, while other trippy things are happening.) I wouldn't find it hard to believe that there is a thing you can do to the brain that makes it believe you are in conscious control of affecting the world you are sensorily experiencing. By itself, this would just make you experience dreaming as normal, but with a sensation that whatever you're doing in the dream—and however the dream is proceeding—it was your choice for you to do those things, and for the dream to proceed in that fashion. Without actual control of the dream, this would likely cause ego-dystonic thoughts: questioning why you directed the dream to go the way it did, because it seems so out-of-line with your normal waking desires. |
|
I cover this objection in the next sentence:
>"If you will not trust their self report of that info there is no reason to trust anything else they report about the dream either."
If you don't trust the self report of such basic aspects of the dream, why would you believe anything they say about it at all? Either way, the "LuCiD" scale they came up with is unhelpful for identifying lucid dreaming.