Talk:Dream/Archive 2

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

"Disease States"

Under the section "dreaming in disease states", synesthesia is the only condition mentioned. Synesthesia is not considered a disease or disorder, but a normal variation. Also, the information listed should be checked on- has there actually been a study on whether synesthetes ever dream in black-and-white?

Clean up

While you are fast asleep, your mind is working harder than ever. Your dreams are made up of the little things, that your conscious mind over looks, and strong feelings along with some random thoughts. The one thing people don't realize is that dreams are more than just nonsense, it is your body and mind's only way of communicating with you. Your telling yourself things in dreams, and solving problems, effortlessly. The only thing you have to do is pay attention and listen.

This pargraph is out of place and seems to be slanted and was removed to talk page. Located under Dream content --> Emotions

The expectation fulfilment theory of dreams

The section titled "The expectation fulfilment theory of dreams" in the article is monstrously unencyclopedic, so I tagged it with a we-need-an-expert-to-clean-it-up-and-add-sources tag. That, and I added about a dozen {{fact}} tags to the section. We may simply be better off deleting it, but I'll leave the discussion of that to someone else.


Hello. Please don't delete this. In the UK and Ireland Joe Griffin is a significant figure in psychology, particularly for his discoveries about dreaming, explaining why depressed people dream so intently etc. Psychotherapy has enormously from his ideas. I have tried to put something on Wikipedia about his work because people in the UK asked me to (because they think it significant and valuable) and I work with him. I am not slick at doing this however but I think "monstrously unencyclopedic" is a bit strong. It took me ages just to work out how to put references in and I don't have much spare time. Any help would be welcome. Ivan Tyrrell

I agree with Ivan Tyrell, this article is highly relevant. It helped me alot.

Freud/Psychodynamic interpretation of dreams

Critics would point out that this hypothesis cannot explain nightmares, though many case studies, such as the Rat Man, show this method to be successful.

Many of the examples from "The Interpreation of Dreams" are themselves nightmares, and Freud gives several examples of "latent" wishes that are repulsive to the dreamer in waking life (and so, he says, portrayed with terror or horror). Can anyone provide a source for this criticism? --Mgreenbe 01:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Which meaning do you mean of the two nightmare has? Jclerman 01:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Now that things are cleared up, I see I didn't respond! I would mean the more current definition, traumatic/anxious dreams — not sleep paralysis. I don't remember if Freud talks about sleep paralysis in TIoD, but he certainly discusses (POV "accounts for") anxious dreams. --Mgreenbe 12:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Jung

I'm so glad 67.129.121.254 added the info on Jung, it was really lacking. Quick question: what's the source for "one-to-one encryptions of underlying verbal propositions"? I can't remember/find it in TIoD — does he say elsewhere that the preconscious is linguistic? --Mgreenbe 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember Jung discussed this in one of his works. I don't recall whether it was Dreams, Symbols of Transformation, or Archetypes & The Collective Unconscious.
The comment is describing Freud's work. Jung says it about Freud? If so, it must be attributed (with a source). --Mgreenbe 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Along with Jung and Freud, the entire topic of dreaming must mention the name Edgar Cayce. His name is very important in the history of dream interpretation. I'm afraid my own penmanship would not be apropriate in the official Wikipedia documents, but I do believe it is a very important topic to be brought into the context. Mick 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? Cayce was a psychic not a psychologist. --Reidlophile (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OR

While inspiration for psychodynamic theories originates primarily in case studies, empirical exploration of psychodynamic theories like that of Jung are possible. However, due to a disconnect between Psychology's academic (i.e. university professors / researchers) and practitioner communities (i.e. therapists), modern professors are unlikely to have been exposed to psychodynamic theory to an extent sufficient to inform the design of scientific research. Moreover, with clinical training being increasingly influenced by trends in managed care (i.e. sources of third party reimbursement for therapy), classical and intellectual thinking in the psychodynamic tradition is being marginalized in favor of short-term, cost-efficient, and manualized therapies (e.g. CBT / REBT) that can be passed on easily by just about any clinical instructor to the masses. By contrast, Freudian and Jungian approaches to therapy do not lend themselves to manualization and require a great deal of independent reading and specialized training outside the mainstream curriculum / career ladder. The prevailing thought among many practitioners is that you have to have a personality very much like Freud or Jung to be able to understand how to adapt Freudian and Jungian theory into methods of therapy. Consequently, a great deal of Freudian and Jungian wisdom about dreams will not only remain unexplored in scientific circles, but will remain entirely unavailable to new generations of academics and practitioners.

This seem like OR/POV to me. It's also unencyclopedic (informal "you", etc.). Can 67.129.121.254 or someone else cite? --Mgreenbe 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll find some sources in a Google search of ||Freud Jung "managed care"||. I'll have to search for support of other elements of this paragraph. It's one of those things that's generally acknowledged within Psychology's academic and professional communities. Freud and Jung are seldom read in the original, and as there is more pressure to train students in modern professional development activities like Psychometric Assessment and manualized and evidence-based treatments, Freud and Jung quickly became exiled to the "liberal arts" wing of the psych curriculum and get less and less attention. Consequently with each new training generation, new profs seem to have less understanding / interest in Freud and Jung then the previous one and I'd say that by now Freud and Jung should be added to the official list of "lost arts." The public is very much out of step with academic Psychology, and psych profs complain all the time that when they meet a layperson who knows he or she is a psych prof, the layperson drops name like Freud, Jung, Frasier Crane, and Dr. Phil, and the academic considers Freud and Jung too classical and primitive (though in my personal opinion the modern psych profs doesn't have half the brain of the old intellectuals).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2006

Up to date scientific appraoch to dreams

This article lacks an up to date scientific (evolutionary) approach to dreams. Freud's interpretations have long been discredited, so it might be wise to read up on some contemporary psychology as well. The fact that more modern interpretations of dreams are missing gives it, in my opinion, a strong bias toward non-scientific dream interpration. —the preceding unsigned comment is by ChristianW (talk • contribs) 03:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the appropriate page for most of that material would be dream interpretation. I agree that experimental science is not well represented. Be bold! --Mgreenbe 12:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have in my notes that there are scientific studies on the predicitive value of dreams (and that there is no significant correlation between them and waking life events). I don't know what study it was though or where to find it. I think my professor just mentioned it in class. 128.113.200.207 22:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Link cleanup

The following links have been removed due to commercial content:

All of the spiritualtravel.org links have been consolidated.

The following links have been removed for other reasons:

If there is no argument, I will blank the list above in one week (posted 17:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)).

If there is support for it, I am in favor of removing the links to various New Age dream interpretation sites; any link to New Age material to remain would have to justify its notability. If a user wants New Age dream interpretation, they are free to search for "spiritual dream interpretation" in any number of fine search engines. --Mgreenbe 17:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Could the users who added back the links (67.129.121.254 for fireflysun.com and 24.218.99.255 for thelifeboatforum.com) justify their additions? I have alleged that the first is commercial (attempts to sell a book) and the second is too small to justify linking. If this is true, it is sufficient for removal (see the style guide Wikipedia:External links and the guideline Wikipedia:Spam). --Mgreenbe 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
moved comment from list
They [the fireflysun.com links] haven't been [PR for a book] for some time. I removed the cover image and link to the book sales page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
A quick check revealed that the PR remains. A closer reading of the page makes me question the relation of much of the material to dreams in general, as well as its worth as a resource. Finally, only a single link per website is appropriate.
PR does not remain. Book cover image and buy it button with link to sales page has been eliminated. Am I to assume that the criteria for a valid external link is a Web site owned and operated by an institution rather than a single individual? I'd be hard pressed to find a discussion more scholarly than the Dreaming & Stress Coping article, and the link to Dreams & Dreaming FAQ averages 280 visits a day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) .
There are no hard and fast criteria for external links which aren't commercial. Nevertheless:
Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun available again at Barnes & Noble.com[1]
The italicized text is a link to purchase the book. The image and button do remain, at least on my version; I have reloaded the page multiple times from multiple continents. To be frank, even without the commerciality, I oppose the inclusion of the links. How would the pages help a naive browser understand dreams or perspectives on dreams? --Mgreenbe 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I am going to submit the page for peer review; a third opinion on the link's relevance can be obtained. --Mgreenbe 15:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed over 400 trade papers on dreams for my doctoral dissertation, so I'm interested to see who you draw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) .
Peer review of the article on Wikipedia, not of fireflysun.com. --Mgreenbe 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd removed the link to "prescient" dream of A. Lincoln info. It may be useful on a page about legends associated with him, though. Pavel Vozenilek 02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Can I ask why there are two links to the humanform.info website in the external links of this article? I've looked at the site and, unless I'm missing something (please tell me if I am), it seems minute and ameturish. I have noticed that links to this site have been deleted as spam elsewhere, but they seem to stay in this page, in double. I'm asking because I want to know if the links to humanform.info should be here and, if they should why should they, and also if they have a good reason to be here perhaps they are ok to be where they've been deleted from the other dream-related pages?Jonathanpops 11:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I also share the opinion of Jonathan. The humanform site does not have related information to this article (for me) and it cites two pages of the same site, which is considered spamming according to Wiki:Spam. Both pages are only two of the four pages of this website, which could not be considered a proper source for a wikipedia article in this sense that let alone quality, quantity doesn't exist. My suggestion is speedy delete for the two links. Maestro 09:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to remove the external link to the forum http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-41620.html , I'm pretty sure forums aren't generally linked to on Wikipedia and this is a direct link to a forum thread, with commercial ads top and bottom also. Anyway I don't want to just delete it without asking first in case it's been agreed upon or something and I missed it, I don't look at this page all that often, so should it be kept or not? Jonathanpops 09:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

More deletions

Deleted references to dreams being able to see the future - which is idiotic and unscientific.


In a dream, you can dream up special things you wish to happen or things you regret happenning, either love or hatred. Colors are represented in dreams which signifies different moods and meaning of the dream being thought of. Dreams may occur at night or during the day which we call a Day dream. In a day dream, you dream while staying awake.

None of this makes much sense, nor is it written appropriately. Dream interpretation belongs on that page. Note that I have kept in the reference to daydreams.

Freud treated dream images as encryptions of underlying verbal propositions, while Jung addressed the imagery of the dream in its own right and the whole of a dream as an experience.

This is redundant with the previous paragraph.

Jung put the unconscious (dream) life more at the center of personality than even Freud.

This is self-evident from the paragraph; let the reader make the judgment.

The whole Jung/Freud comparison should be moved to dream interpretation, which is the main page for that sort of thing. I will eventually do this. --Mgreenbe 14:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Freud approached dreams as secondary to waking life, putting waking reality at the center of the person's life. In contrast, Jung argued that dreams are glimpses into an ongoing, independent inner life — and, more importantly, that this inner life is the hidden infrastructure and foundation of conscious awareness and perceptual functions. According to Jung, the experience of the dream is capable of transforming and teaching us in much the same way waking events do, such that upon wakening, the dreamer is primed to interpret, organize, and evaluate elements of his world a little differently than the day before. In this way, Jung believed that the effect of a dream is not contingent on insight or even recall.

As a prelude to my threat (I'll do it, I'm crazy!), I'm moving a paragraph here. That whole section is quite redundant. --Mgreenbe 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Researchers often define lucid dreaming as simply "being aware in a dream that one is dreaming". Many others define a lucid dream as a dream in which the dreamer has full awareness that the situation is a mental construct — and thus can analyse the situation logically and react accordingly. Such full awareness adds numerous extra abilities to the dreamer, particularly control of the direction of the dream.

Far too long for a simple definition. Snip! --Mgreenbe 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add asection on lucid dreams? I read a lot about them a while back and they are really interesting. Also, that is a short simple definition (the one the researchers use is the definition part, the other part is elaborative). Thanks to anyone that helps! 128.113.200.207 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There was allot of useful information here, in the list of deleted itsems, that is very important to the very nature of dreams. There is no such things as "too long" when it gives fair and credible account to multiple interpretations. If anything, the matter of lucid dreaming was too short not giving enough information. This isn't a dictionary, it is an Encyclopedia, so in depth details are important. For simple definitions, refer to www.dictionary.com Also, in regards to Dream interpretation? I think that it would be better organized to see multiple dream topics condensed into a single article. Dream Interpretation is to Dream as Rainforest Canopy is to Rain Forest. That basic outlined format, of multiple details held within a broad topic is a very useful and important practice that makes an article worth reading where I find that this article simply does not have enough details. I'd rather read redundant Information than not enough. And as I see, a user before me has requested to see information on the Lucid Dream state, so obviously there is allot missing after said deletions.

I also read above where external links were removed. There is no such thing, imho, for information to be too small for notice. And the habbit this article has of removing any and all details in regards to dream details, rather than just the simplist science, leaves one with very little information. On that regard, it could use some more information about the nature of each brain wave state and explanation of aprox. duration. It could use sub-sections with various interpretations of what a dream is, types of dreams, and examples. New Age interpretation, imho, is still a dream interpretation, and should bot be divided as if it wasn't.

I would like to see the overall format revised, sources and information added, and a much less "closed concept" environment, all of which relates to the NPOV. If nothing else, I'd like to see this article not so "Divided"

--Gwaeraurond 6:19 AM EST, March 5 2006

time sense in dreams?

The article stated that if it felt like 20 minutes, than it was 20 minutes with no time distortion, but this makes no sense to me. Just yesterday I slept for a 3 and a half hour nap, and it felt like MUCH longer. While in other times, I might sleep for as much as 10 hours but it will feel like much less.

This ties into every day actions that reflect our perception of time. You can be having fun, and never notice the time pass by while you can watch the clock and it will take much longer. To me, it seems obvious that both awake and asleep time is naturally distorted to and by our perceptions.

I once did an experiment with another person on the phone, and set my alarm clock for only 2 minutes, then did a mantra with her and it honeslty felt like a good half hour before those 2 minutes passed by, and she had a similar sensation - but when the experiment was repeated a second time, after making this realization, it didn't have the same effect as our attention was more on the clocks than on ourselves. This led to a personal conclusion that our perception of time, and perhaps the affect time has on our bodies, is in direct relation to our state of observation.

Related, but seperate, is a classic example in Quantum Physics, called the Double-Slit experiment where a particle is shown to behave as a wave except when observed where it then behaves as a article. (refer to an experiment demonstrated here: http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/

If the physical realty at the microcosmic scale is subjective to observation, it isn't hard to suggest that the mind and body can be subjective to observation or lack of observation in it's relation to time.

--Gwaeraurond 5:13 AM EST, March 5 2006 people with the letter l r da best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.182.142 (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice analogy. Passing observation - you are quite right, it isn't hard to suggest (and I'm paraphrasing) that time experienced during dreams is distorted by perception. However it is hard to prove it. The double-slit experiment is repeatable observable phenomenon that has not been falsified since 1805. If you could come up with an experiment in relation to time elapse in dreams you might be onto something? And personal observations don't count because, as you've pointed out, they're subjective. --Nickj69 20:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Subjective personal observations... Hmm, I wonder how neurologists came up with the "time sense = actual time passed" theory in the first place if it were not for the subjective method of asking the dreamer how much time he/she believed to have elapsed in the dream! Personally, I believe the very theory to be intrinsically subjective on the grounds that every person probably has a different sense of time in dreams. As for my own dreams, days and days have passed in my dreams (I've even dreamt about going to sleep, passing an entire day, going to sleep again, passing a second day, etc.); I could dream up two weeks and wake up to find that only a few hours have passed! --Lapin rossignol 03:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Time sense is subjective at all times. If you're doing something fun times seems to go "quicker" and time seems to go slower when you're watching the clock. So Time sense being dilated in dreams is no different to real life. It may be more exaggerated though. -Gelsamel 00:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that www.whatthebleep.com is a very bad source for information of Quantum physics etc. [2] -Gelsamel 00:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I added some research done about the passage of time in the lucid dreaming article, since that is the one time we can actually measure how much time passes while dreaming. Turns out...the same as in waking life. LilDice 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reqest For Mention

Also, I would like to see some more mention in the article about the dream state in waking life. I don't have the information in front of me at the moment, so I am afraid I can't quote, but I read in a book about studies on dreams that stated that when we are awake, there are chemical released which actually supress the dream state, which accounts for why elements of a "dream" can you please add more stuff to it as it is a hard project

Just checking something

I'm not sure, so I didn't want to jump in and change it myself, but doesn't REM stand for 'rapid eye movement'. If so, the sentence "if awakened during rapid eye movement REM sleep" is just repeating REM twice, is it not? Shamess 10:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the 'REM' should be within parentheses? i.e. "if awakened during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep" 05:24, September 18, 2006 Jonathanpops

Did you check the article? Deja-vu yesterday. Jclerman 14:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, sorry I never thought to check if it had been changed already. --Jonathanpops 23:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel sentences

Sentences such as:

  • "Most scientists believe that almost all humans dream with approximately the same frequency"
  • "although some people have reported lucid dreaming, breaking the suspension of disbelief and realizing they are dreaming"
  • "Some species do not dream at all"
  • "Some sources also state that like Joseph..."
  • "Some neurologists even group mental phenomena such as daydreaming under the umbrella of dreaming"

all seem to contain weasel words. Latitude0116 04:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Way forward

Not only does this article contain weasel words but the plethora of ((fact)) tags hurts its credibility, and there seems no imminent prospect of anyone with expert knowledge sourcing this article. What I should like to do is to radically cut down this article by removing anything unsourced oe weasly. As with pruning a tree, this will allow for new growth from a healthy basis. Thoughts, please. BlueValour 01:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the sentences tagged with {{fact}} since no citations have been forthcoming. I'd strongly recommend a deeper pruning of this article as many WP:weasel words and unverifiable assertions remain. Gwernol 15:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unscientific Bias

"...evidence also exists for precognitive dreams."

Feeling, Including pain, in dreams?

I'm looking for a solid article on feeling and pain in dreams but I can't find any! Even wikipedia meantions nothing about it, which I find very interesting. Everynow and then (very seldom, but it happens) I have a dream where I can feel things happening in it. Sometimes the feeling is diluted and sometimes it isn't. For instance I had a dream where I was a samurai and I was fighting in the snow, this time I had dilute feeling, which was good because during the fight I got badly wounded, I could feel pain, but it was like a "that hurts" thing rather then screaming in pain. In the dream I blacked out and woke up laying in the snow and I could feel the cool snow against me, when I woke up out of the dream I felt uncomfortable in the places where I was wounded, but not much pain. Another dream I had with undiluted pain was pretty short, my brother was angry at me for some reason and charged me with a broom stick and shoved it in my stomach. I woke up the instant I got jabbed with it and It felt EXACTLY like being jabbed in the stomach really hard with a broomstick, I had extreme pain in my stomach with no obvious reason for the pain. I am curious about how the brain can cause realistic hallucinations, and why you cannot tell a dream is real (when no lucidly dreaming) despite how weird and stupid it may get, and how the brain can synthesis feeling which isn't there in dreams! -Gelsamel 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's strange, I feel like that too, it's kind of like a dull pain, and also, you can't really scream, It's just a strange, diluted feeling. Eighter way, I'm with you. -Uagehry456|Talk 07:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Ive had experiences where I have been conscious in a dream, as in trying to move about or open my eyes, but still paralyzed, I remember one of the first times it happened I was thinking "Oh my god whats going on...why cant I move". I had one recently and realized what it was but no matter what its still an extreme feeling of fear or panic. After a few seconds (or at least thats how long I can remember them being) I have always woken up late at night startled and wishing that it would never happen again, Its just weird. I have even had 2 during one night.

As for one of your questions, the brain can recreate or generate any feeling or image, for example, the brain fills in what you see, your eyes are about 90% color blind, only the spot of what your focusing on receives color, and next to that on the eye is a completely blind spot, the brain fills all this in before you actually "see" anything. Valros3 (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)valros3

I had that happen to me too. If we can find a source for it, I think it would be a good short addition to the article. Wakedream (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but my dreams, although some are outlandish, are fully represented with all feeling that the senses can provide. I can smell, touch, taste..you name it. I don't know whether I am blessed or cursed. I've been stabbed, and can touch, smell, and taste the blood flowing, and it hurt like hell till I woke up. I have been struck by lightning, and can feel the red-hot tingling storm from head to toe, and the smell of burned flesh. (This may have to do with many instances in which I shocked by electricity, injured or cut myself, the brain had all the data it needs to construct a new sequence). Going in a restaurant in a dream to me is cheap( cost nothing) tasty and fully enjoyable, until..waking up. I remember a peculiar lucid dream, where I stepped off a jetty jutting low out into a river, and remember that in the past, to fly, I had to flap my hands and pump my legs like mad. I told myself in the dream:"you don't have to do that, will and intent will do, after all, you have been flying in dreams for so long" (Leaping to/off/over fences, buildings and tree as well as flying is my favorite 30 years-odd dreaming pastime, though rather physically involved, my legs tired when i woke up :-)). I did exactly that, using just my will to move vertically 10 inches off the water without moving any parts of the body. The sensations of mastery and triumph is priceless! I stand there, looking at the surface of the water flowing with intricate patterns of small whirls 10 inches beneath my feet, the sun shining, the trees on the banks, the wind on my face, the ambient sounds...all in exact perspectives and as physical laws have it...except for me floating there. It makes one wonder where the brain has gathered and stored all the data, then construct and executes such a super realistic simulation? I consider myself a lucid dreamer. And I can learn from it too. Nowadays, I don't have to flap to fly anymore.

All things considered, these personal things are not exaggerations or boasting at all. Just to show that the dream articles and their researchers only touch a drop of the ocean.Skepticus (talk)

POV

This whole article is POV! The overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that dreams have no meaning at all, and are a side-effect of the neurological/biochemical activities that occur during sleep. This hypothesis needs to be given prominent status in the article, rather than being omitted as it is now. It's cute to think that dreams have profound meaning, but it's simply not true. They're fun, but meaningless. Pretending otherwise is along the same lines as believing in a hollow earth, and that myth is not even given space on the Earth page. This article should be dramatically shrunk. Then again, only people who are interested in pseudoscience are likely to look up "Dream" in the first place. Pardon my vituperative tone, but reading a lot of bullsh*t will do that to you. 24.95.48.112 07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point except the second to last sentence. I came wanting to learn the neurological reason for dreams and not some new age/old age fluff.FancyPants 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that dreams are meaningless. If you convince me I will react like a christian convinced there is no god. If you tell me you won't bother because I won't believe you, I will be reminded of several religious behaviours. 203.173.152.168 22:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Neanderthal

"Another theory is that dreams are a remnant of our Neanderthal past where they have served as a mental training ground for the daily life and death struggles."

Most scientific - evolutionary, biological and cognitive - evidence support the fact the we do not descend from Neanderthals.

In general: this thread needs some serious clean-up.

- J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.75.60.23 (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Tags removed

I have removed the weasel tag and the citation tag at the beginning of the article. People have been good about overcoming these obstacles! If there are still problems in these areas that I have missed in removing the tags, please affix a smaller tag (preferably the {cn} tag; otherwise just fix it) to the specific area of need. V-Man737 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not an enjoyable article

I've read this article and I have to say it sounds like a parody of a junior high home assignment and it's painful to read. I know it would be very time consuming and perhaps difficult, but I plead for someone to write a good article (about this wonderful subject). 84.48.59.142 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually the policy on Wikipedia is that if you see something amiss, you can fix it! That's why it is so cool. Any "painful" item in the article specifically? V-Man737 07:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

think

Dreaming may to me be one of the most common acts of the human nature. To me, if a human is to stay with character/difference in the world they must dream or to most people DREAM BIG. Their emotions and acts may be caused by their dreams/dreamings.This all is from my mind so if i am wrong please correct me. Miapowell 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Miapowell

Dreams and Satan

What is this all about: "In the Later Middle Ages, dreams were seen as temptations from Satan, and thus were seen as dangerous."? It sounds a bit messy to me. I mean seen by who? It sounds as if it is either written entire with Western European Christians in mind, or the whole world believed dreams were sent from Satan in the middle ages. I think it should be written much more objectively, pointing out which group of people believed that dreams were from Satan, otherwise the article looks really biased. Jonathanpops 18:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Déjà vu

The paragraph dealing with déjà vu is ridiculous and needs attention. I tried to tackle it a moment ago but reduced it to smithereens. I was actually tempted to delete the paragraph (not in a dream from Satan, mind you), but I feel that the dream theory of déjà vu does deserve mention, and that perhaps someone out there is able to do a better job of wikifying it than myself. ARGH. V-Man737 20:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole page is pretty difficult, it's quite a mess. I think it's because there's a lot of 'belief' involved in the subject, and a lot of 'sceptisism also which comes from it having a lot of belief involved. It's quite a paradox.Jonathanpops 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

For real. But for some reason, that paragraph seems like it was translated through three different languages in Babel Fish before its current English version. As an editor, I tend to look more at spelling and grammar (see my user page where I am called a "grammar Nazi") rather than factual accuracies and disputable thingies... This paragraph certainly does a wonderful job of blurring the line between those two worlds. V-Man737 21:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'm not even sure what the paragraph is trying to say. Do you have an idea what the essence of the paragraph's meaning is meant to be, that might be useful as a starting point? Jonathanpops 22:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, that one theory about déjà vu includes dreams in some way. *shrug* I am about to weep tears made of English teachers here. V-Man737 23:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So it's saying that one theory about the feelings of déjà vu, where we think we have seen something or been somewhere before, is that we have done these things in our dreams and forgotten about it? Jonathanpops 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this: The theory of Déjà Vu and dreams says that the feeling of thinking one has seen or experienced something already could be attributed to dreaming about a similar situation or place and forgetting about it, until one seems to be mysteriously reminded of the situation or place while awake. Jonathanpops 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

^_^ Definitely better than the Babel Fish translation. V-Man737 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I added it in and left the Tyler Coulson bit on the end. I really don't know who Tyler Coulson is though, there should probably be some explantion about who he is if he's going to stay. Jonathanpops 00:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tyler Coulson, after a Google search, seems to have absolutely nothing to do with dreams. I'm taking him out. And while I'm at it, I'll brush stuff up. Thanks for the refreshing linguistic judo-chop! V-Man737 20:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Expert help?

Looking around the Psychology Project page, I noticed that this article was requesting "expert help" and didn't know exactly who would be considered an "expert" with dreams. It's the same problem I have with the Hypnosis article I've worked on. How can one be an "expert" on such a controversial topic? Anyway... I'd be happy to lend a hand with my "expertise". Just point me in the right direction. DrMattGomes 18:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The problem with dreams is that it's all theoretical. Another stumbling block is that different people experience dreams in different ways, and some people seem to not have them at all, which makes it very difficult for anyone to be objective about them. At one extreme you get wishy washy new age types claiming predictions of the future, and at another extreme you get matter of fact cynical (psuedo science) types claiming dreams have no significance whatsoever. Then there's the myriad variations in between (passing through Freud, Jung and LSD), every one of which seems to want to edit the article to their own liking and none of them are verifiably right or wrong. I think it's an article that can never make everyone happy with its message. The best we can do I think is have paragraghs representing different theories and have "experts" in the field of each paragraph do their best to clarify its meaning.

Whatever the article turns out like it boils down to:

Dream

Somepeople say this, some people say that, but no one really knows why we have them or what they are for, if anything at all. Jonathanpops 20:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Hey! That's exactly what the hypnosis article says! DrMattGomes 21:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dreaming in animals

I've noticed there is no more dreams in animals section. I think this is a rather interesting topic, because some animals seems to be dreaming vividly(dogs for example). any information on serious studies on this matter would be really appreciated! Regards and happy new year to you all! Loudenvier 18:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could start a seperate article on Dreaming Animals, if you have information on the subject. It's a pretty difficult subject to verify though I would have thought, as is the subject of dreams in humans actually.

History

What's with the overuse of the word "humans" in the history section? It reads as if the article is meant for travellers from another planet. I think a lot of theose "humans" could be replaced by "people", thoughts anyone? Jonathanpops 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD! I probably missed the overuse because I'd gotten finished replacing "animal" with "dreamer" or "subject." I'd say referring to a person experiencing dreams as a "human" is a sight better than "the animal." V-Man737 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, you're doing a great job too. You're very brave to go wading in there. :) Jonathanpops

This article requires authentication or verification by an expert.

I'm not sure we need that template at the top or, if we do, I think it will be there forever. I don't think we can ever have an "expert" on such a subjective subject. Jonathanpops 10:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing subjective about Dreams. There are plenty of scientists who specialize in the field. What we need to make sure is we don't give undo weight to the flavor of the month psychotherapeutic/dream interpretation mumbo-jumbo in the article. LilDice 00:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing subjective about dreams?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidlophile (talk • contribs) 11:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dream/Archive_2&oldid=329947793"