Talk:Dream/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What a mess, cleaning up!

I've been working on the Lucid dreaming article for a few weeks, and for the first time I read this article. What a mess! I'm going to be doing some serious reorganization, so heads up, please don't feel personally insulted if a section gets nuked or rewritten because I plan on being very bold :) LilDice 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do! I may follow your lead (collaboration! everyone run! the species you hear about but never see); as I'm currently reading a reasonably respectable book about the history/psychology/etc. of dreams. –Outriggr § 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the lucid dreaming article for ideas, I think it's pretty well organized. I probably need to read another book at some point in this process so that I can weight sections more accurately. I do have access to lots of journals/indexes so I can get the most up to date peer-reviewed research, so let me know if you think something needs a cite. At this point first thing is organization though, then we'll go through and cite. LilDice 01:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah, if you find yourself as bewildered by the section marked {essay} as I was, feel free to nuke it. V-Man737 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a mess. I think the point the author was trying to get across was a general overview of how science/psychology answers the question - "Why do we dream?". I am getting a book tomorrow that I hope has a good overview of the science bit. So I'm leaving it begrudgingly till I can replace it with something better. LilDice 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't wait, the more I read it the more out of place it was. Better to not have it then have it for the time being. LilDice 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Bye Joe Griffith/Human Givens

Alright, my research on pubmed/web of science/tomson gale powersearch/google shows that this human givens, 'expectation theory of dreaming' is not-notable. I can't find any peer reviwed research that discusses him/the idea or cites him. Reading the previous discussions it appears it's just someone trying to push their (self-published) book. LilDice 02:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some recent edits (diff) seem a bit questionable, although I can see some merit in a couple of them if the editor would like to provide sources for the statements and talk about wording changes here so we can establish a consensus. V-Man - T/C 03:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit was attempted again; I examined it carefully and made a compromise, leaving the acceptable modifications. The parts I removed included "involuntary," as it contradicted the part about Lucid dreaming and needed a source; "in the mind" to avoid being redundant; "certain stages," since this ought to include which certain stages, but doesn't; and "assumed to unrealistic and therefore," being an amalgamation of poor grammar and a pretentious-sounding voice. Feel free to express opinions on this edit, inviting consensus. V-Man - T/C 04:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks fairly good. I'm not sure what you mean by pretentious-sounding voice, but I think there is a pretentious-sounding voice in a lot of wikipedia articles, or perhaps a condescending-sounding voice. A suggestive undertone, usually along the lines of, "some people think this, but they're misguided fools and the real truth is bla bla bla...". Jonathanpops 10:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My Sleepwalking theory

"you may be wondering about why people may be able to commit to hypnosis but may not be a susceptible sleepwalker. But I don’t think that is the case at all - it’s possible that everyone who can be hypnotised can sleepwalk and vice versa, but not one without the other. Statistics show around 15% of people respond well to hypnosis, the exact same percentage of those who are known to or suspected to sleepwalk at some time in their life. Coincidence? I think not…"

http://weethan.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/my-sleep-disorder-theory/#more-39

I don't agree with any of that, it all sounds rather silly, and a little childish. Jonathanpops 13:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition

Instead of "his advisor" it should read "while working with Nathaniel Kleitman who had been investigating what he termed "the basic rest-activity cycle of infancy". Then after "ground breaking study in Science" : Kleitman continued to study this ultradian cycle until 1980 when he published a paper confirming that REM sleep is the nightly activity part of the rest-activity cycle.9. Kleitman, N. (1982) Basic rest-activity cycle - 22 years later. Sleep. 5(4) 311-317.

Added to page by User:Mmashleymd. Should be on talk page, not mainspace. WLU 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The angel did not tell Joseph that Mary's baby was "the Son of God"

At 1:54 on 4 September 2007, a "revert" was made to an earlier version of the text, as follows:

"...in the New Testament, divine inspiration comes as a dream to Saint Joseph, the husband of Mary, when the Angel Gabriel spoke to him in a dream and told him that the baby Mary was carrying was the Son of God."

The relevant passage is in the Gospel according to Matthew 1:20-23, which in a literal English rendering reads as follows:

"(v.20) But while he was pondering these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary thy wife, for what has been begotten in her by the Spirit is holy. (v.21)And she will bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. (v.22) But all this happened in order that (there) might be fulfilled what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: (v.23) Behold, the virgin will have in the womb, and will bear, a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being translated is, God with us."

Most likely, the initial contributor's memory confused the contents of the angel's annunciation to Joseph with that to Mary (see Luke 1:35), which, however, was not made in a dream and therefore not of interest in the context of the Dream article. So, the assertion in the Dream article needs to be corrected, either by a verbatim quotation, or by a correct interpretation of the angel's words. An interpretation is already offered in Matthew 1:22-23, although, strictly speaking, this is not an interpretation of the angel's words only, but of everything related from v.18 onwards.

To be accurate, the angel's annunciation to Joseph concerns two issues: Firstly, Joseph is told to take his wife Mary (which is a reference to the formal "home taking" that concludes Jewish weddings), and not to be afraid (to do so), for the reason that the child with which his wife Mary is pregnant by the Spirit is holy. Secondly, Joseph is told that Mary will bear a son, and instructed to call his name "Jesus", the etymology of which is correctly given as "he will save his people from their sins".

It is wrong to paraphrase this as the angel telling Joseph that "the baby Mary was carrying was the Son of God".

Even after the change to the earlier contributor's text it is still not as precise as it might be. The reason for this is that many modern translations of Matthew 1:20 are not sufficiently literal to enable their readers to understand the precise meaning of the underlying Greek. If, prompted by this Dreams article, they look up the passage in Matthew, and most likely have a less than literal rendering, they should still be able to understand the assertion in this article on dreams.

P.S.: In view of the above ponderings, I have now deleted my previous addition "the promised Emmanuel", which, as I said above, is itself an interpretation, not only of the words of the angel, but of all that has been related from v.18 onwards.14:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dream (in religion)

Previous contributor(s) thought it of interest to elaborate on this point, but recently those contributions have been deleted, with some justification. Yet dreams within the context of religious experience merit an article. I therefore propose a new article styled "Dream (in religion)".
Here are the recently deleted paragraphs. They may serve as the starting material for the proposed new article.

Dreams in Judaism

The Torah tells the same story of Joseph, who was given the power to interpret dreams and act accordingly. Biblical stories and actions that came from dreams (and visions) form about one-third of the entire Bible.[citation needed]

The most significant OT dreams were those of Pharoah (Genesis 41:1-6) and Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:31-35). Joseph interpreted Pharoah's dream, leading to a 7-year preparation for an extended famine, and the ultimate relocation of Joseph's brothers to Egypt. Daniel not only interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, but described it to him also (God revealed the dream to Daniel). Nebuchadnezzar's dream foretold the rise and fall of earthly kingdoms until the return of Christ. Vendicar (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dreams in Christianity

In ancient Judeo-Christianity: in the Tanakh, Jacob, Joseph and Daniel are given the ability to interpret dreams by Yahweh; in the New Testament, divine inspiration comes as a dream to Saint Joseph, the husband of Mary, when the Archangel Gabriel spoke to him in a dream and told him that the baby Mary was carrying was the Saviour of his people.[1] After their flight to Egypt, Gabriel appeared again in a dream to tell him when it was safe to return to the Land of Israel, and in a further dream to the district of Galilee.[2]

The story of Saint Patrick and his conversion of the people of Ireland also features dreaming. When Patrick was enslaved in Antrim he was told by God in a dream that there was a boat waiting in Wicklow to bring him back to his homeland.

The belief that dreams were part of a spiritual world continued into the Early Middle Ages. A story from Nevers, which is reproduced in the Golden Legend, states that one night the Emperor Charlemagne dreamed that he was saved from being killed by a wild boar during a hunt by the appearance of a child, who had promised to save the emperor from death if he would give him clothes to cover his nakedness. The bishop of Nevers interpreted this dream to mean that he wanted the emperor to repair the roof of the cathedral dedicated to the boy-saint Saint Cyricus.

Dreams in Islam

The Qur'ān, too, tells the story of Joseph, who was given the power to interpret dreams and act accordingly. In Islam, good dreams are considered to be from Allah and bad dreams from Satan.[3]

14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The above "Dream (in religion)" had been submitted on the page "Articles for creation". The following was the response:
Declined. This article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it at Dream. Feel free to add this content to that article. Precious Roy 18:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreams IN literature

Is there an argument for including information on literature (as in fiction) about dreams - or would that warrant a seperate article? i'm thinking specifically of James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake", which is an attempt to represent the dream-state through language (and not as airy-fairy as it sounds, Joyce did an awful lot of research on the subject, it's a very thorough book on the dream-state, and very much a product of the Freudian influenced atmosphere of the early 20th century), but there are also many attempts in poetry and literature to represent dreams.

The point would be that the scientific side is an explanation of the physical state of dreaming, and the literature is man's attempt to represent the content of dreams. would such a section be pertinent do you think?Warchef 11:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Gender Differences

Ok, the gender differences section has been having some problems. It originally said that 90% of the characters in men's dreams are other men, however, I checked the reference and found no mention of the porportions of men and women in dreams, so I removed the source and marked it as unreferenced. Now it says 70% of the characters in men's dreams are other men and provides a different source, but I still can't find any reference to that.

"Given these family patterns, it is not surprising that his male/female percent is extremely low at 50/50 vs. 67/33 for the norms (h = .35)."

This is the best I can find, and it says that approximately 67% of the characters in mens' dreams are other men according to whatever study the source is referencing. Can anyone make sense of this source?Ziiv (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'Nightmare' article

I know this kind of doesn't belong here, but I'm inexperienced and thought this might work :). There are probably a lot of experts/knowledgeable people here in this subject area (Dreaming), so I ask some of you to go look at the nightmare article, which, at this point (29 Dec 07) is in extremely poor shape and there seems nobody able/willing to work on it. Somebody here might have the necessary skills to clean it up, as it doesn't look extremely good for Wikipedia, having a 'fundamental' subject such as that with a poor article. Just trying to rally the troops.... Chris b shanks (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.dreamresearch.net/Library/fmid8.html as a source

The http://www.dreamresearch.net/Library/fmid8.html link is used as a source to support the statement "It is believed that in men's dreams an average of 70 percent of the characters are other men". I can't find anything on the linked page that makes this assertion - there is a sentence in relation to Kafka's dreams - "Of these 95, 63 were male and 32 female, yielding a male/female percent identical with the male norms" but no indication that I could see of where this number comes from. The page is about specific individuals and small focused groups, it is not a general population. It doesn't seem like this is an appropriate reliable source for the general claim about prevalence. Did I miss something? -- SiobhanHansa 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See #Gender Differences above - the same concern is mentioned. Take it out pending a reliable source - this one seems to be some web page. If this is a real figure, it should be reported in a reliable source, a scientific journal or peer-reviewed scholarly book. WLU (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed. WLU (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert contributions needed?

There have been several previous calls for expert review, but confusion about exactly what is needed. What I find is missing is an explanation of which ideas floating around in the article are generally accepted as true, and by whom. And also which ideas are popular but armchair-based psychology, and which have actually been investigated by scientific studies. The section "Functional hypotheses" is lacking context with regard to scientific studies entirely. The supersection "Dream theories" is lacking historical context. So these studies were done in the 1970s or whenever; are they currently accepted, rejected, or is there no consensus. With regard to "Dreams and memories" I seem to remember hearing about relatively recent studies that detailed how sleep impacts long-term to short-term memory conversion. The information in the article seems out-of-date in that regard. The section "Dream interpretation" is also lacking scientific context and information about which schools of thought are still active in 2008. Someone familiar with the scientific literature in the field (or who is willing to do a lot of reading) would be quite helpful here. Or perhaps these things are explained in intro to psychology textbooks? -- Beland (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links

We would like to verify our link (www.luciddreaming.com) as we feel it directly correlates to the topic of dreams. As a relatively new website, we're striving to increase the awareness of lucid dreaming by providing a community based online resource. By utilizing social networking technology we hope to provide a broad opportunity for lucid dreamers and alike to network among each other and share their perspectives whether it be through our forum or archived information. We're consistently trying to make improvements based on user responses and feel it would be a great benefit to the LD community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawfd (talk • contribs) 06:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this here. In my opinion your site does not meet our guidelines. Wikipedia is not a portal or link repository. It is not our goal to have a significant list of general resources on our articles - we look for links that give authoritative, further encyclopedic information about a subject. New sites and community sites almost never meet this requirement. If your site gains a reputation for being *the* place to go for accurate and authoritative information on dreaming in general it might become an appropriate link for this page.
We also ask that editors do not add their own links directly to the article page as you have. Unlike Wikipedia dmoz is a directory and would likely welcome your link - I encourage you to register it there. Their web address is http:www.dmoz.org. We currently link to their http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/Dreams/ directory on this article. -- SiobhanHansa 12:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
We ask you take another look at luciddreaming.com and reconsider its inclusion into external links for the wikipedia entry 'dream'. Since its previous deletion, we've taken steps to make reference articles more authoratative, unique, and original. (http://www.luciddreaming.com/information). We consider the information contained within to be directly related to dreams and a useful additional reference resource. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.232.6 (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC) (Moved from my talk page [1] User:SiobhanHansa}
From my perspective the changes to the site do not address the fundamental question of its own authority - Who writes it and what are their qualifications? Who reads it and what do they think of it?.
The most appropriate sites are ones that themselves already have a reputation as being good places to get sound information among experts in the field. This sites doesn't seem to meet that standard. It also contains quite a lot of advertising which is another negative mark against its use.
Please do not try to design your site for inclusion in Wikipedia. We're not a marketing platform. Such attempts are likely to be frustrating and unsuccessful at getting you exposure. Look to design for your audience - if you become a well known site respected for accurate information on the subject you will likely be added to the article by other editors. -- SiobhanHansa 07:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dreams or Dream Interpretation Links

Question: How can a dream interpretation or dream analysis web page get added as an outside link to wikipedia? Is that legit? Here's the site I've been working on [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.101.2.253 (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Technical answer: You simply put the link [3] (perhaps with some enlightening comment like Forum "Dreamsnare" to discuss dream experiences in the "External Links" section of the article. But (legitimacy caveat), as has been noted elsewhere on this page, it's generally considered a bad idea to insert links to one's own pages into WP. Either other people think it's relevant, then they will link it, or it might be better suited to dmoz or the like pages. Have fun! --Syzygy (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Universities, institutes and scientific disciplines where dreams are studied?

The article could be more useful if there was a paragraph or section elaborating in which universities dreams (and what aspect) are studied, and also which disciplines study dreams in what way (i.e. do all dream studies fall under psychology, or cognitive science, or biology, etc). Since dreams are studied extensively nowadays I am sure they are attached or within the framework of one (or more) of the sciences. An example would the article on cognitive science where at the end there is a list of universities where it is studied, degrees they award in the field and what aspects or perspectives of the field they specialize in. Capricornis (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality issues with section Dream theories

This section has several problems: It does not distinguish between proven scientific findings (as in Neurology) and theoretic speculation which avoids falsifiability (as in Philosophy). It does not give dates for the theories, so the reader can not distinguish a theory from over a hundered years ago, when the function of different brain regions was virtually unknown, from modern results e.g. from a EEG or fMPI. It prominently features several theories, while putting others into a list without showing the special notability of these prominently featured theories. Especially, it starts out with a longish explanation of a theory of a philosopher who does not even have a Wikipedia page. --84.178.77.48 (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Horomones and dreaming

http://www.websciences.org/cftemplate/NAPS/archives/indiv.cfm?ID=19970654 http://www.springerlink.com/content/u80rw03101144q22/

What we dream and how much we dream also seems to be effected by hormones. Legit source. Not sure where to add.... which may be why more women remember dreams than men.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Section Merge

I may not fully understand the difference but I think the same section of dreams is covered twice. The section "Dreaming and the 'real world'" and "Dream incorporation" seem to cover the same idea. I think these should be merged. If no one protests in the next couple days I will do so. JeremyWJ (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Merged! Åkebråke (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"12% only dream in B&W"

This is a ridiculously high number and seems to be bogus. I'm also not sure where this statistic is coming from. The article at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3353504/Black-and-white-TV-generation-have-monochrome-dreams.html states that "Only 4.4 per cent of the under-25s' dreams were black and white. The over-55s who had had access to colour TV and film during their childhood also reported a very low proportion of just 7.3 per cent". However, (1) you cannot just add 4.4% to 7.3% and say that approximately 12% of the entire population only dream in B&W - percentages do not work that way, (2) the experiment was not conclusive enough (e.g. having a small sample population, etc.) to state this claim in such a factual manner. At most, you could only say that particular experiment(s) suggest that possibly only x% of the population dream in B&W. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "a small minority", which seems to be reasonably well-supported by the sources. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a term for the matter-of-fact acceptance of different personal history?

One of the strangest things I find about dreams is that it is so easy to accept that one has an entirely different history than in real life. For example, dreaming that one lives in an apartment over an intersection in some unknown city; that one has a roommate who compulsively organizes all her food in plastic containers labeled neatly with tape. And as the dream goes on, gradually the incongruities one accepts without thinking at the beginning seem to become more and more jarring: the containers are all labeled in Spanish; the people out on the city streets all have a somewhat Asian appearance; the prize possessions of your own you'd like to retrieve after one wall begins to collapse seem to have no place in the building. And none of these things seem directly based on any previous real experience. I think it moves usually in this direction, from acceptance of the fictional to more and more expecting the known from real life. But where do the original pseudohistories come from? Wnt (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages aren't the right place to ask questions like this -- that's what the Science Reference Desk is for. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Looie is basically right, but I think that Wnt's comment has the potential to stimulate some article improvement, chiefly by bringing to light a particular source. That source would be (of all people) Friedrich Nietzsche, who theorized that dreaming is an evolutionary adaptation whereby the mind relaxes from higher-order processing and accepts what it perceives, instantly (if inaccurately) deducing cause from effect through a sort of primitive, efficient logic. The Asian-looking people on the street, for example, might not correspond to the people on your real-life street(s), but they do correspond to the colours and shapes that are physiologically perceptible with eyes closed and in a state of sleep. So, according to Nietzsche, you first attune to the colours and shapes themselves, and only then deduce that they derive from the most apparently available causes (i.e., Asian-looking people). So basically, if I understand Nietzsche right, dreaming is firstly a physiologically derived phenomenon, and secondly an immediate psychological imposition of explanatory order (which, due to its immediacy and rapidity, often seems entirely disorderly) upon the perceived phenomenon. My point is, Nietzsche had an interesting theory about dreams, and it might (with a proper citation) warrant mention in the article. (And the proper citation would be of pp. 17-19 of this book.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

XKCD

Dreams were mentioned on today's XKCD, which is the most popular webcomic in the world read by thousands of people. I'm sure that even scientists of dreams read the comic, because it is a very intellect oriented comic. Requesting that we add a "trivia" or "dreams in popular culture" section that mentions this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.56.68 (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me - one time in Peanuts, a popular print comic that has been read by literally millions of people, Charlie Brown had a dream. Neither this nor XKCD should be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.217 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The second editor is right. WP:TRIVIA sections are discouraged, and can easily get out of hand. If the article noted every time that dreams came up in popular culture, the article would be a million miles long. (Having said that, though, I've gotta check out this comic...) Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very surprised there is not a whole category on dreams in religion and the prominence of dreams in modern religion. I am not religious but surely this is an important part of the concept of dreams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.72.217 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. R. Farhat and Platagnooze

I just googled the word "Platagnooze": It only appears in this article (Dream#Other hypotheses on dreaming). At the risk of sounding judgmental, I wonder if this is a legit addition to this article. (It was added on 13:08, 5 August 2010.) I'm new at this, so I'll leave this content alone in case I'm not looking at this in the right way. Peytonbland (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed (as unsourced, even if not vandalism, which I'm fairly sure it is.) Added by an anon yesterday. Thanks for pointing it out. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


Inception

"Accelerated thought processes while dreaming allowed characters to perceive time orders of magnitude more slowly; it is implied that two lead characters experienced decades of dreaming in hours of real-world time." - should it not be clarified that this does not actually happen, as stated earlier in the article? 80.42.246.207 (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dreams not fully understood

The intro states "The content and purpose of dreams are not fully understood." I'm no expert, but from reading the article and other stuff I understood that the content and purpose of dreams are not understood at all and this field of study is rife with speculation, which is mostly unsubstantiated. The current line gives the impression that we already figured it out, but not quite. I suggest replacing the word "fully" with the word "yet", which I think summarizes the issue as presented in the article more appropriately. I would have edited it myself, but the page is protected. 46.116.176.5 (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge

In an Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge (to quote its own article) "It is revealed that Farquhar never escaped at all; he imagined the entire third part of the story during the time between falling through the bridge and the noose finally breaking his neck." Under alternative definitions of dream this might be acceptable, however the primary one of most dictionarys and the definition at the start of the article mandate a dream occur while sleeping. Therefore I deleted from Popular Culture Section. If anyone has alternative thinking to this matter go ahead and speak it Joshua Phillips (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Oh my God, awesome, I totally read that story for English 11CP back in high school!
2. More to the point, the experience of the character Farquhar in that story would probably fall under either wishful thinking or flash forward. Therefore, I agree with you. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is a term for this? And if so it should be in the Article

In my own dreams, I generally do have full control of my own actions within the dream. Unlike what is described here of lucid dreamers, however, I generally have no greater control over my environment (locations, other people, objects) than I do in real life. Is there a special term for this type of dreaming? If so, it should also find its way into the Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's also called Lucid Dreaming. The level of control someone has in lucid dreaming varies. If you look at the article page on it, where it goes into more depth, you will notice it describes many types of dreaming that are considered lucid. The correlating factor is that the person is aware, to some extent, that it is a dream. From that, the level of control (personal, surroundings, environment) varies depending on the ability of the lucid dreamer. I have full control of myself, and large control (which I usually choose not to exercise) of my environment when I dream. I am also almost always fully aware I am dreaming and suppress that to a certain extent. I've reset time (this I think was the most difficult to learn), changed my environment or the dream entirely, invalidate the laws of physics, etc... So, we are both lucid dreamers, and our level of control is simply what varies.
Because the section on lucid dreams (in this article) points to the full article on it, it's only a short summary to give people an idea of what lucid dreaming is - with the link to the full article so they can learn more (assuming they are interested). So, in that respect, proper balance and weight is being given in this article by not making the section on lucid dreams too large. With that in mind, I'd be all for a bit more clarification on the key points of what determines whether someone is having a lucid dream - as long as it does not mean expanding that section into something that gives it undue weight in an article that is largely not about it. Hope that helps. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Intro blurb

Is it just me or do the first few lines of this page seem rather lame? I think it could be cleaned up to summarize the concept better. Unfortunately, I don't really know how exactly this might be done. 72.29.211.19 (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the lead is too short. If you would like to take a shot at improving it, go ahead -- the worst that can happen is that your changes get reverted. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)




Publish the study on introvert dreams vs. extrovert dreams, a.k.a., thinking in dream and/or talking in dream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.193.101 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Organize the whole article

Information is repetitive. Some paragraphs are scattered across the article. Please organize into well developed sections that have transitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafafc91 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition of material in dream

Is it possible to add the following article on dream. The author talks about how dreams could be modified by yoga.[4]

Akraj (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


I think it is of significance that frequent marijuana users report being unable to recall their dreams. Also that a study in 1975 revealed that THC in marijuana reduces REM sleep. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/200906/marijuana-sleep-and-dreams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treva26 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Drugs - Champix and Dreams

I not that the Dream article is protected against editing. I suggest adding a sub-section, perhaps called Drugs, in which information can be laid on the effect of drugs upon dreams. I have been prescribed a course of Varenicline (Champix) and I have had many vivid dream as a result, and there are many similar references from a Google search. DRG2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg2010 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Reviewing the history of this talk page, there seem to be a number of reversions and deletions of other editor's comments. This sort of practice is discouraged in the talk page guidelines.

I understand that this sort of page, where science meets pseudoscience, is subject to the occasional rambling or irrelevant comment. But in these cases it is better to ignore such comments, and then archive the page, rather than delete another editor's good natured comments. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages are meant for discussing how to improve the article. There's no harm done in removing comments that talk about dreams in general or whatever the problem was -- and it saves time for new people who come to the talk page (or its archives) to read discussions about the article, not discussions about the article's subject. It's good etiquette to not waste other people's time.
If you think we have an issue here, take it up in the proper venue (or maybe the talk page of the offending editor(s)), this isn't the right place for it. (You have my permission to delete my comment here if you want to delete this thread.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the default is to keep stuff, but this page in particular could easily get so cluttered with junk as to be unusable. There is certainly no reason to keep things like spam for web pages that are written in Turkish -- to mention the most recent deletion. Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts right after you wake up indicative of what you just dreamted about?

My apologies if this is better on the Reference Desk.

I have noticed at times that unusual, random thoughts will be in my head as I am waking up; not about the thigns I am to do that day, and not the hypnamorphic kind where you dream half asleep. But, like, for an example, I might wake up and be thinking of the 1927 New York Yankees even though it's not baseball season and I haven't thought of them in a long while. (As a baseball fan it's a bad example, but in general... :-)

Does this heppen becasue people don't remember their dreams but do retain some part of them upon waking up, or not? Again, sorry if this should be Red Desked, but it did seem like an excellent thing to add to the article if needed.

Oh, and I also made a small revision concerning the real world in dreams, to clarify that it need not be the same stimuli int he dream, only the same sound, as per my example (metal clanging) which comes from personal expereince. :-)99.109.51.52 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Times

I think that there should be more information about how dreams were interpreted during the middle ages. I thought it was extremely interesting how they loved getting dreams because they looked to them as messages from their ancestors. Plus, they took their dreams very literally because they also believed they were signs of what to expect in the after life Monica Devin Smith (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

More information about how dreams were interpreted in the middle ages would be welcome. However, please see WP:VERIFY. Any information that you wish to add requires a source - a reference to a book or an academic paper that indicates what the information is based upon. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Dream Length is Inconsistent

In the lead section it says: 

  * Most people have up to 5 dreams per night.
  * Dreams last up to 20 minutes.
  * People spend 2 hours dreaming per night.

These statements are inconsistent; the first two imply people dream "at most" 100 minutes per night while the third says they dream on average 120 minutes per night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philleski (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably this whole thing should be rewritten, since "dreams" per se are quite difficult to quantify. If we are talking about REM sleep episodes, then it looks to me like the standard numbers given are: (1) most people have on average four or five per night; (2) the mean duration is around 20 minutes, but the longest can be nearly an hour; (3) on average people spend 90-120 minutes per night in REM sleep. I got those numbers by glancing around a bit in Google Scholar, but it would be nice for somebody to do enough reading to actually pin this down. Looie496 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Scientists 'read dreams' using brain scans"

[5]: "Researchers in Japan used MRI scans to reveal the images that people were seeing as they entered into an early stage of sleep. Writing in the journal Science, they reported that they could do this with 60% accuracy. The team now wants to see if brain activity can be used to decipher other aspects of dreaming, such as the emotions experienced during sleep." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, but way too new and unconfirmed (BBC source says: "a study suggests") to add to this article. Lova Falk talk 07:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I agree "60% accuracy" doesn't sound very high, does it. But isn't Science a perfectly good WP:RS? Or is it just not trusted, as it's a "primary source"? Do we need to wait until this practice is commonplace? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I would very much like a list of good and not good WP:RS, because this question pops up every now and then. As far as I understand, this kind of BBC article is not a good source at all, because it is written by a "science reporter" who has read a primary source. A good Wikipedia editor can do exactly the same thing... Lova Falk talk 07:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, quite. I guess there is always some variability with press sources even when it’s the BBC. There’s got to be a balance between single studies in peer-reviewed journals (even if they are considered WP:MED/RS), and wider notability recognised by the press in the public arena. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Normally, important articles in Science are accompanied by perspective pieces, and I think those should be usable, with a bit of caution, as reliable sources. In this case the article has not even been published yet -- it's still in Science Express, their online preprint service -- so it would be premature for us to use it. Beyond that, I don't think we should completely rule out articles by the BBC and New York Times as sources. They are usually written by people with some expertise and include some critical discussion. Things like Science News and Science Daily are a different story -- they are often just regurgitated press releases. Looie496 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Wise words Looie496. The BBC article says “Writing in the journal Science, they reported..” so perhaps a little misleading. But thanks for the clarification and corroboration – for a moment there I thought I might have dreamt the whole thing up. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

to wake me up so I’ll breathe again.

Succession

The word succession in the way it is used implies some kind of shared theme, or sequence, or order to dream events. It does not not fit as the best descriptive since dream experiences are not ordered. I am getting my definitions from MW and Wiktionary. What is your argument for using the word in this way? 400 Lux (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither MW or Wiktionary states that the word always implies a shared theme or some kind of order. You can have a succession of things that are essentially unordered and unrelated to each other, like the experiences that occur while dreaming. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 16:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I just read how to indent. :) Taken from definition "a number of people or things sharing a specified characteristic and following one after the other." Are we asking readers to infer that dream is the shared theme... it reads awkward to me. 400 Lux (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I agree with TheStickMan here. The significant point we try to make seems to be that not every single image is a dream of its own - dreams take some time. I'd say "experiencing it while you sleep" is enough of a shared characteristic for me to accept the term "succession". Huon (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I understand. 400 Lux (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

More about colour in section "Color vs. black and white"

In the section "Color vs. black and white" there's nothing about actual colours, just black and white. I'm not sure how many people this applies to, but when I dream, the colours are usually completely different to what they are in real life, e.g- purple grass. Should this be added? GWires (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

REM-activity is not the correlate of dreaming

In the article is written that most mammals dream. This is concluded from the fact, that nearly all mammals have REM-sleep. But it has been proven that REM-activation is not the same as dreaming, although it correlates. For further information: The Neuropsychology of Dreams (Mark Solms). In fact there is a double disociation. There are people who do not dream after a brain injury who have REM-sleep and there are people without REM-sleep who do dream. In fact there has not been reported a single patient having not dreams after REM-loss. The information about dreams being more mundane in deep sleep has not been replicated.IzmirWayne (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dream Characteristics

What are the characteristics of dreams? I'm told that most dreams are like silent black-and-white movies. I frequently have dreams, however, that are quite vivid in nature. Things are in color and I have conversations with people. In one such dream, I was in a room in which everything was blue: the walls, my bed, my pajamas, everything. A little blue radio on a blue bedside table was playing a melody I didn’t recognize. Someone looking like a man with blue skin dressed all in blue stood at the foot of my bed, apparently upset and berating me for my presence there. I could hear him yelling but couldn’t understand a word he was saying. Another characteristic seems to be that things happen or exist in vast spaces. Yet another thing about them is that I remember them – vividly – not for a while but indefinitely, like they were actual events in my experience. Are these what are referred to elsewhere as lucid dreams? Are these perhaps symptoms of sleep apnea and the dreams are my oxygen-starved brain trying to awaken me so I'll breathe again? Does the literature provide any insight that should be mentioned in this article? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting questions, but this is not the right place to ask them. This page should be used for focused discussions on how to improve our article, on the basis of reputable published sources. Looie496 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@Zbvhs: omg we're so the same. Like, I remember most of my dreams since I was a kid. It's bizarre because I don't even notice that they are stored in my brain for a long time not till I try to recall them. They are so vivid and became the continuation of the other and some other times I felt like its my reality not till I woke up. Its kinda scary yet amazing. Have u found the explanation to them? zlouiemark [ T ] [ C ] 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"In other cultures, dreams go beyond the barrier of life, death, and what the human being is able to persist, we clearly have 2 types of dreams, lucid and normal."

Animals and dreams

how about adding an section about animals and dreams,since sleeping pets commonly display dream-like behavior of various sort i think it would be an interesting topic to add to this otherwise superb article--212.181.199.36 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not just interesting, but relevant - IF we can find experts in that field with published articles in reliable sources. If you're up for that challenge, go for it. You will find the egotistical nature of humankind may make that difficult, as many things were once (and in some cases, still are) ascribed to being "human only" actions/occurrences. Just remember not to give it undue weight - balance the amount of content you add with the amount already in the article on other aspects of dreams. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


I created a "Dream in animals" sections. Please further this section with more examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafafc91 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"dhks experience minimal REM" -- pardon my ignorance, but what the heck is/are dhks? Psho (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Broadcasted Dreams

Some dreams turn out to be broadcast images. It is possible to send dreams at a person. Does this constitute assault, seeing how these can get someone killed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.69.24 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dream. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of information on dream recording

An IP editor feels very strongly that dream recording is not relevant to the Recall section. In the interests of WP:CONSENSUS they should explain their reasoning in more detail than an edit summary allows so that other editors can better understand. Personally, I feel the section is very relevant given the applications of dream recordings as a substitute or aid for recall. RA0808 talkcontribs 21:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

this should be about aiding recall etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.50.116.179 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't the future applications of dream recordings have everything to do with aiding recall? RA0808 talkcontribs 22:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


hypothetically, but not replacing recall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.50.116.179 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC) Even though we do not understand dreams technology is evolving every day and give us a better understanding of dreams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.154.58 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dream. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

'Only Faces That One Has Already Seen Appear In Dreams' Claim

What study(ies) made this claim? I've heard it several times, without sources, was hoping I might find it mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.98.35 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


Well, the claim is in all probability grossly incorrect or a gross over-generalization... if it's not cited, it should be tagged or removed. If it is cited from a reliable source, then it should be left - and perhaps a counter study found. I've created entire environments (landscapes, cities, etc) in my head. I've got no doubt that anyone with any artistic creativity can create faces - just as an artist would - of people they have not seen. I've personally done that, and rarely dream a face I can ever remember seeing. But, of course, changing it due to that would be original research which is not permitted. So, I'd look for a study that says otherwise, and/or tag/remove the uncited content - or find a cite to support the claim. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know how such a claim could possibly be tested! Kostaki mou (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I would say that such a claim would be impossible to test. It might be possible to report it, as a belief or an argument, made by a notable sleep or dream researcher, perhaps even by an authority such as Sigmund Freud. But as a categorical statement it begs far too many questions, not the least of which is what constitutes "a face" is a dream. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dream. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Between Dreams and Reality

People may Dream about having something that's not theirs... or Dreaming of What they could of had... there are many types of dreams You just need to know how to separate reality from Fantasy....


(Patience Michel1 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dream. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dream now

not a suggestion on how to improve the article WP:NOTFORUM

Dream - the unwittingness of the sleeping state and the process of mental contents, the most prominent representatives, which are an unmistakable expression of the most unmistakable fantasy reality (the subject of dreams in reality is subject to reality). Sometimes the dream gives the first cripple or the feeling of real irritability caused by it. The experimental challenge of this is based on weak optical (optic), acoustic or touch irritations, theory of fantasy identification is especially widely seen in the dream of a dream, sometimes even as the allegorical significance. In such a dream, the unmatched fantasy will create a satisfactory need for life (organic or high-profile). The fantasy of dreams is what we are concerned about. Eg, desirable; It may be the opposite, let us cope with what we are worried about.

Sometimes in a dream, fantasy continues to act in the intensity of which the life of the action is followed by a fixation (eg translator who translates throughout the day, doing so in a dream). The physiological basis of dreams is the withdrawal of separate parts of the cerebral cortex in the state of deterioration due to sleep ("breakdown"), which sometimes leads to the fragmented chaotic march of performances Early scholars expressed the opinion that nothing in secret is not a secret. The dream is to revive real memories in sleep. It was the best thing to do. Sechenov has expressed. He described Dream as an "unprecedented combination of existing impressions." The full explanation of Dreams Physiology and its internal mechanism has been made possible by the understanding of the higher nervousness, in particular, the understanding of the peculiarities of the process of recurrence. Experiments have shown that the nervousness of the cell stimulus in full retention, and Pukuku occurs a number of intermediate e. Year Hypnotic phases when sleeping is not deep, we can not see dreams, but if the brain's resistance in separate cells and pollutants for some reason is weakened, and complete retention will be replaced by one transition phase, we see dreams. Especially interesting is paradoxical phase. Cells in this phase respond to a more intense irritability than stronger, sometimes even irritating, at all. Semicolonic eruptions of old feeling or impressions in the cortical cells in the paradox phase may become weak irritants; In this case, what has long been forgotten is the creation of the beautiful and exciting imagery in the human brain, as if I had seen them. Sleeping in the brain often occurs at the back of the diffusive containment. They are related to desires and desires, which we thought throughout the day. This mechanism (the physicists call it a revival of the dominant dominant) is based on the rare dreams when we see our intentions and dreams fulfilled. The brain is acting in its own time, and the effect is distinguishable from the ordering of the mind during the awakening. When a person is sober, the environment is clear, critically analyzes, analyzes his behaviors and thoughts. All this is done by working with different parts of the brain cord. In the sleeping part of the brain, the parts of the brain disagree, chaos. The bulk of the brain cortex is in full retention, but the algae is involved in the nerve cells that are in the transition hyponic phase. At the same time, the retention process takes place in the bark and where a few minutes before the complete retention, suddenly occurs partial excitement and vice versa. [Froide holds a special place among the psychologists of XX century. His monologue "Dreams Explained" was published in 1900. This is Freud's most important work in the field of psychoanalysis, where the doctrine is based on unconsciousness. Since then, no work has been done on psychology. It contains a method of neurosis research and treatment, definition of hidden content of dreams and more. Prior was a consciousness to regulate human behavior, and Froide found that beyond consciousness, the other person's unconscious desires and desires that often lead to human behavior. Froide believes that sleep controls the control of consciousness, so dreams allow us to study human unconscious psychic manifestations. In particular, in the dreams the neurotic disorders of the psyche are revealed, and the content of the dream corresponds to human unconscious desires, aspirations and motives. Dream is a product of a psychic animal. His explanation has a double meaning: first of all we can understand what the dream of a person's spiritual condition, his biological functions, and the other - we can find out whether every element of dreams has its "meaning". According to some thinkers, the dream comes from mental excitement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.146.167.248 (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't detected as a copyright violation, but it appears to be someone's independent essay. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017

there is some error need to change Xpaulm23 (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The article

No such thing as mostx in dreams are negative or anxiety etc. or negative or not, no anxiety etc. for suchx, anyx, cepu, think, do, feel any no matter what and any be perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetrabu (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Fritz Perls' view

This does not represent Perls' views on dreams. In his Gestalt therapy, dreams were used as patient-generated material for the patient him- or herself to project onto. Please see Fritz Perls, Gestalt Therapy Verbatim, 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.200.5.43 (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The current content describing Perls' view on dreams does not contradict or disagree with your description. You'll need to explain in more detail why you think it "does not represent" Perls' views, and how it would be changed to do so. Please provide a link to an online reference if possible. General Ization Talk 16:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Which citation shows that this section represents Perls' view on dreams? I don't see any source for it. "Dreams are seen as projections of parts of the self that have been ignored, rejected, or suppressed" is misleading and not part of Perls' Gestalt therapy theories. I also do not have access to the linked article's contents. Are you able to view them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.200.5.43 (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't; nor do I have access to Perls' 1969 book. Once again, your suggestions, assuming you do have access to it, of how the text could be reworded to better reflect Perls' views? If Perls' book is to be used to support changes, please provide the edition and specific page numbers that you are relying on as sources. General Ization Talk 18:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This rewrite is in line with Perls:

Fritz Perls presented his theory of dreams as part of the holistic nature of Gestalt therapy. His contention is that all the different parts of the dream are fragments of our personalities. The dreamer may, therefore, be asked to imagine being an object in the dream and to describe it, in order to bring into awareness the characteristics of the object that correspond with the dreamer's personality.

For the source it would be Perls, Fritz (1969) Gestalt Therapy Verbatim. Bantam Books. pp. 71 ISBN 10: 0553142011.

For some more context, here is the section I am referencing:

"Freud once called the dream the Via Regia, the royal road to the unconscious. And I believe it is really the royal road to integration. I never know what the "unconscious" is, but we know that the dream definitely is the most spontaneous production we have. It comes about without our intention, will, deliberation. The dream is the most spontaneous expression of the existence of the human being. There's nothing else as spontaneous as the dream. The most absurd dream doesn't disturb us as being absurd at the time: We feel it is the real thing. Whatever you do otherwise in life, you still have some kind of control or deliberate interference. Not so with the dream. Every dream is an art work, more than a novel, a bizarre drama. Whether or not it's good art is another story, but there is always lots of movement, fights, encounters, all kinds of things in it. Now if my contention is correct, which I believe of course it is, all the different parts of the dream are fragments of our personalities."

Suppressed and rejected aspects are from Freud, something Perls moved away from. Small change, but it's grounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4380:6E0:1E:30C1:2212:54A8 (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

bust

im bouta bust — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.188.105 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Blind people dreaming

The article says blind people do not have visual dreams and uses an outdated reference.

Blind people can also experience visual dreams, according to recent research.

[[6]] Polytope4D (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Dream world

In the "dream world and real world" section, the connection between incorporating external stimuli into dreams and the idea that the entire world is a dream is very tenuous. Either this should be explained more, or these should be split up into different sections.

Sometimes I see people that I don't even know,even met before. I think they are also seeing me their dreams . It's all connected, dream is a world that people in 'this world' meets for a particular reason. Crowdhater (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

Ref. BR Flame (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, please submit requests in the form "change x to y". Pahunkat (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021 (2)

Ref. BR Flame (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, duplicate of above. Pahunkat (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Should the template at the top say Dream (Youtuber)?

It's a really popular YouTuber so many people may look for his page. LukeyBear11 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal To Restructure This Article

I wish to undertake a restructuring of the Dream article. Tentative outline for the replacement structure is shown below. I also anticipate adding the following: (1) content currently in an apparently dormant article https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Cognitive_neuroscience_of_dreams that the current Dream article links in its "See also" section; (2) references to "Left-brain interpreter" (Wikipedia's article: https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Left-brain_interpreter ), (3) content from "Dream Pattern and Culture Pattern" (Chapter 4) of E.R. Dodds's The Greeks and the Irrational, (4) more content from the 1991 Gackenbach book (reference #21 in the current Dream article).

The proposed new structure takes Freud out of the lead. Below I have copied the current article structure, followed by a tentative proposed structure showing possible section headings. Following each possible section heading name are the numeric identifiers for current article content to be re-positioned within that new section. I'm a lay Wikipedian, not an expert on dreams. Therefore, I will be extremely cautious about deleting any current content as I go about the proposed restructuring.

Comments / critiques / collaboration most welcome. I see this as a multi-week project that would begin on or about June 28.

Current Dream article structure

Lead
1 Cultural meaning
1.1 Ancient history
1.2 Classical history
1.3 Religious views
1.3.1 Abrahamic
1.3.2 Hindu
1.3.3 Buddhist
1.4 Philosophical realism
1.5 Postclassical and medieval history
1.6 Art
1.7 Literature
1.8 Popular culture
2 Neurobiology
2.1 Rapid eye movement
2.2 REM sleep
2.3 Brain activity
2.4 Cognitive capacity
3 In other animals
4 Theories on function
4.1 Dynamic psychiatry
4.1.1 Freud's view
4.1.2 Jung's view
4.1.3 Fritz Perls' view
4.2 Neurology
4.2.1 Activation synthesis hypothesis
4.2.2 Continual activation
4.2.3 Defensive immobilization: the precursor
4.2.4 Excitation of long-term memory
4.2.5 Strengthening semantic memories
4.3 Psychological
4.3.1 Role in testing and selecting mental schemas
4.3.2 Evolutionary
4.3.3 Other
5 Content
5.1 Visuals
5.2 Emotions
5.3 Sexual themes
5.4 Color and luminance
6 Interpretations
6.1 Importance
6.2 Therapy
7 Incorporation of reality
8 Precognition
9 Lucidity
9.1 Communication
10 Absent-minded transgression
11 Recall
11.1 Personal differences
12 Déjà vu
13 Daydreams
14 Hallucination
15 Nightmare
15.1 Night terror
16 See also
17 References
18 Further reading
19 External links

Proposed sections for Dream article restructured

Lead
1 Dreamer subjective experience
>> Portions of 1.1 through 1.5, 5 and 15 and 6.2 (plus new Dodds content)
2 Dream physiology
>> 2 and 3 (plus content from sections 2 and 3 of Wikipedia's article "Cognitive neuroscience of dreams")
3 Theories of dream generation
>> 4.2 through 4.2.4 (plus new left-brain interpreter content)
4 Theories of dream function
>> 4.2.5 through 4.3.3, first paragraph of 7.1
5 Dream in cultural contexts
>> Portions of 1.1 through 1.5, 6, second paragraph of 7.1, 8
6 Dream interpretations
>> 4.1 and 6 through 6.1
7 Dream in art and literature
>> 1.6 through 1.8
8 Lucid dreaming
>> 9 through 10
9 Dream recall
>> 11 through 11.1
10 Phenomena similar to dream
>> 12 through 14
11 See also
>> 16
12 References
>> 17
13 Further reading
>> 18
14 External links
>> 19

Canhelp (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In the June intent-to-restructure announcement, I wrote, "I will be extremely cautious about deleting any current content as I go about the proposed restructuring." One week into this effort, I now wish to remove excessive detail from the Dream article. To bring the article closer to the standard of WP:Summary, I intend to move some current content to appropriate subtopic/child articles and to relegate some other content to no more than a link referral in Dream's "See also" section. An example of the second case will be the Welsh myths an earlier editor has placed in Dream's "Classical history" section.
I don't expect to deliver ongoing updates to this restructure work-in-process, but I thought myself obligated to revise that earlier statement. Canhelp (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Most of the content of the current (19 July 2021) Dream article falls under the headings (1) Theories of dream function, (2) Dream in cultural contexts, and (3) Dream interpretations. In the proposed in-process restructure of the article, these will be sections 4, 5, and 6. I currently target 7 August for completion of the restructure. Those interested in watching it build can visit https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=User:Canhelp/sandbox/Dream . Draft content of the restructured article (currently, that's the lead and sections 1, 2, and 3) is whatever one sees above the line reading "END OF WORK FOR NOW." Comments, advice, concerns -- all are invited. Canhelp (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Draft restructure is complete and continues to be viewable at https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=User:Canhelp/sandbox/Dream . My intention is to leave it there until August 7 before installing. Unless prompted for changes by a different editor, I believe I'll make no more changes to the draft, though I probably will re-proofread a time or two, making minor corrections as needed. I thank previous editors for the excellent references that were invaluable to me. Some content of the Dream article I intend to overlay a few days from now has been dropped in the restructure. Because REM sleep is not necessarily the foundation for dreaming, REM content has been sharply reduced. One word to the editor who had added the video of two dogs twitching in sleep: I believe that video might be welcome in Wikipedia's "Sleep in non-human animals" article. That article has been added to my draft's "See also" list. Canhelp (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Draft restructure installed. Canhelp (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2021

The introduction mentioned that people dream six years during a life span (which is about two hours each night). The fact that a dram lasts two hours per night is more important to get a general idea about dreams, that it would equal to six years in a lifetime can be added afterward to give more context. 195.198.61.83 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. The 6 hours figure is not mentioned in the reference, and we don't know what lifespan the original writer was using. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Can pre-verbal humans and animals dream... or not?

This article states it is impossible to determine if animals or pre-verbal humans do dream, while the article on Oneirology states that it has been proven that other mammals dream. Both articles include citations for their claims. I suppose either both should offer both views or one view is not accepted by the oneirology community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skymningen (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DanThaMan1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JoRoberts1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Changing one's dream halfway through

Something that should be mentioned is when a person becomes aware that she/he is dreaming and then tries to intervene to change the content of the dream, e.g. to stop bad events in a nightmare or to heighten fun in a fun or sexual dream - this might occur at the stage when the person becomes half-awake. Anyone had such experiences? Should content be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:9C55:2E01:A553:6DC4:63DC:308 (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Our own experiences can't be used, we need sources. Interesting though and I think there should be sources. Here's an old one.[7]. Technology to control dreams or at least their subject is being developed. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
What you're describing is known as a lucid dream. We could Wikilink to that article somewhere in this article, perhaps.. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:51E:ADFC:AB48:F127 (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

the theory of dreams

it probably goes back to ancient times, the aether life is a cosmic source creation life is fed by a source, a plasma in the cosmos

people haven't yet to create a 'dream detector' or a detector for the life all around you

the dream originates in the cosmos like a wave and the silver surfer rides along

to all those interested


all physicists know we are constantly being bombarded with particles

in a jumbled sense that lightening strike is you, a child being born into this world that fire didn't start by arson or lightening, but by another particle(child) from the heavens

have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8D40:70B0:E56E:4EB6:98DE:74D (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert article to more contentful revision

I would like to revert this article to its state on 12:21, 5 August 2021, before user @Canhelp's major revision. Though I appreciate their effort to contribute to the page, I believe the removed content has made this article significantly worse. A large proportional of the article's (non-redundant information) has been removed, including most of the information on existing scientific research. I do not think the page's organization or language was sufficiently improved to justify these major deletions. Morpheme0 (talk)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It appears there is no consensus to revert to that version. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how many votes are needed for "consensus," but I'm also in favor of reversing the changes. It looks like the majority of the content removed was factual/interesting. There is now a single sentence about Jung's work which is pretty seminal to dream interpretation (the sentence is "Carl Jung and others expanded on Freud's idea that dream content reflects the dreamer's unconscious desires.") There used to be multiple paragraphs about his (debated) theories which is meaningful. There also seems to be some organization weirdness with the latest edits because lots of the moved content now lives in the 'miscellany' section. 79.173.135.242 (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to also agree with the need for a reversal, or at least a substantial revision of what's currently present in the article. What particularly bothers me is the note about Julian Jaynes's theory of bicameral mentality, placed just after the 14th citation and not containing any citation itself. Should an unsubstantiated theory with a myriad of issues pertaining to its own likelihood really be placed front-and-center on the main summary? It's one thing to note the theory itself, but its inclusion is written in such a way as to present it as likely fact. 2601:801:200:62C0:0:0:0:1DAB (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggested addition

Dreams are emotionally the most intense on the day afterwards. If something on that day is slightly similar to the last dream, one gets flashbacks. This can be both good (for positive dreams) or bad (for negative dreams). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.38.147 (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL 312

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 June 2022 and 5 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hermp9348 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sydney,schroeder0725.

— Assignment last updated by Sydney,schroeder0725 (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"Bicameral mentality" in lead?

I am not convinced that the following sentence belongs in the lead of this article: "The brain activity capable of formulating such dreams, rare among literate people in later eras, conforms to the bicameral mentality hypothesized by Julian Jaynes as dominant into the second or first millennium BCE." This seems... speculative, and in any case certainly not relevant enough to be in the lead. The bicameral mentality thing isn't exactly a popular, well-known concept, and people aren't coming to the lead of this article for the purpose of reading assertions about whether the known content of some ancient dreams appear to confirm some obscure psychological theory.

I propose this be deleted altogether, or, at the very least, moved to a different section of the page and sourced, as it currently stands as an assertion without a citation. I will add a citation needed tag, and if nobody objects within a few days, I will probably come back and delete the sentence altogether.

--Sensorfire (✎|‽) 03:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I have come back to this after over a month, and since no further discussion has been had about this, and no citation has been given or more detail provided within the article, I have decided to remove the text altogether.
--Sensorfire (✎|‽) 01:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Spiderman ride horse

Spiderman ride horse 5.125.9.167 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Better image?

I don't think that the current image is representative of the topic, because we don't float on top of our body when we dream – dream is an internal thing in our minds. Ideally, the best image would be the one that closely resemble dreams in our mind, but beyond that I'm currently stumped. Does anybody here has any other idea? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

commons:Category:Dreaming in art has a lot to offer.
Perhaps a more literal thinks-bubble cartoon like File:A dream (BM 1868,0808.9057).jpg would be helpful, but I think Bryullov's painting is clearly doing the same thing in a different way. There's also File:Tatiana Larina's dream by Volkov (1891).jpg, although its resolution is quite low.
I think a picture of a person in a bed with something weird happening above them is more recognisable as a dream, than a direct depiction of the kind of thing that might happen in a dream, which could just be read as the weird thing itself. You suggested the AI-generated File:Fantasy Art 2022 The Ninth Dream by David S. Soriano.png a while back, and there are paintings such as File:Moritz Stifter - Allegorie des Traums.jpg on Commons that also show a third-person perspective of a person within a dream, but I'm not sure a viewer's first thought for either of those would be "ah, a dream" - the "what our readers will expect to see" of MOS:LEADIMAGE. Belbury (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't know that it's an AI generated art, I genuinely think that this some human painted it or something. But anyways, I don't think that picking one single image would be possible here, and maybe that maybe we should use {{multiple image}} to add pictures of different perspectives on what a dream is. One image could have a "dream in a bubble", another could have allegorical paintings, etc. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Belbury, actually, it may worth a shot to replace the lead pic with File:A dream (BM 1868,0808.9057).jpg, because it's somewhat clearer and more literal. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

| spouse = GeorgeNotFound 

2607:FB91:2C49:400A:715C:7AFB:D2A6:B0C1 (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 Not done, this makes no sense.--Belbury (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Towards a common scientific data format for dream representation in humans

https://mind-vis.github.io/?s=09

Non-verbal dream representation, ie video generated from brain computer interface data paired with diffusion models

Recently research has emerged which allows generative imagery from human brain activity, I would love to see the dream page updated with a more scientific approach via data from sleep based experiments similar to this.

Of course ideas, emotions, sensations (and perhaps motor control) data would need to be collected to represent a more complete dream state. Wesxdz (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

Pls add to External Links:

  • Fisher Heim, Estee (August 28, 2023). "Dreams as A Second Chance".

ISBN: 9798857894002 Estee fh (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [4]

 Not done, looks like a self-published book and Wikipedia doesn't link to WP:AMAZON pages. --Belbury (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Matthew 1:20–21
  2. ^ Matthew 2:19–22
  3. ^ Kutty, Ahmad. "What is the Islamic teaching about dreams?". Retrieved 2007-09-07.
  4. ^ ISBN:9798857894002
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dream/Archive_3&oldid=1218722173"