Wednesday, December 07, 2005

More weird dreaming

I had another one of those weird dreams last night. This is what I wrote on my phone after I woke up:

Just had a dream. Woke at 4:28am. Seems to b when I go to bed late. Only been asleep about 10mins.

Similar experiance as b4 but high pitch noise. Very empty + black. I reied 2 continue it longer, but didn't like it/got bored.

Decided to wate up instead. I think I may have woken up instantly, but couldn't fully open my eyes/move 4 some time, prob over 30 sec.

Next time I'll try to dream longer + change it.
Writing it down as soon as I wake up helps me remember it a lot. I was definately aware I was dreaming, tho it was near impossible to change anything - possibly because it was a virtually empty dream anyway. Reading about lucid dreams just before going to bed seems to make dreams more lucid too. Also not drinking much / anything.

The weird bit this time was knowing I was awake but definately not being able to move. This is called sleep paralysis or hypnagogic paralysis. Wikipedia says it's not too great, as it's geting out of REM sleep too quickly. More stuff here. More Wikipedia says it's actually OK. I've had 2 of the 3 symptoms (apart from the daytime sleep) of nacolepsy. Should I be worried? I'm not.
It seems strange getting into REM sleep in about 10 mins in normal monophasic sleep. There's a chance it was just stage 4 NREM, tho I doubt it.

The paralysis was unusual too. Last time I thought I was alseep but couldn't wake up. This time I didn't try to wake up straight away. I actually tried to stay asleep and change my dream. I believe I managed to wake fairly instantly when I chose to (tho I can't be sure) but was paralysed for around 30 seconds.

The paralysis wasn't scary as I could think what I wanted. I just waited, knowing I'd be able to move in a short while. I think I could open my eyes and bite my tongue first. It was annoying not being able to move my arms.

If this happens again then I'll try really hard to stay asleep. I'll try to create new things in my dream as blackness is a bit boring. As I was getting to sleep before I seemed to be wake inducing a lucid dream (wiki). This seemed like hours before, after I'd woken up, but it must have been just minutes.

If anyone has any similar experiences then please share them. Also if you have any related links or thoughts / suggestions.


Fern said...

I tend to find the best way to bring about a state of lucid dreaming is to spend a fair bit of time during waking hours just checking you are awake - eventually you carry the habit over into sleep. Once you are aware you are dreaming, you will usually find you have some control over what's occuring. Could be minimal, barely any more than occurs normally, but any amount up to total control over everything that occurs is possible. I enjoy my lucid dreams. I haven't had many recently, and i've had less control in them than i'm used to (i usually reach a point of almost total control).

Hannah said...

How much time and effort do you have to devote to something before it counts as an obsession? Just out of curiosity...

David Hulbert said...

To be obsessed I think it has to come first in your life. Possibly. I'm obsessed with sleeping - I do it almost every night!

This is just really interesting. It'll pass in a week or two. I'm over polyphasic sleep now.

Hannah said...

I got an email from one of the department lecturers the other day tellining us not to use wikipedia, but unfortunately I deleted it before I thought to email it to you.And Woah! thats a long word verification word!

David Hulbert said...

That's really weird. Even if you think it's unreliable then I don't think you should stop using it. Some articles are unreliable but many are actually more reliable than many other sources as they have a more neutral point of view and ahve been moderated by many people instead of just written by one opinionated person.

It's a very valuable source, but it shouldn't be your only source of information.

Word verifications are fun and help my brain wake up in the morning.

Hannah said...

Apparently it's so serious that it's worth telling us in two emails!

"Further to my Friday e-mail about the dangers of using Wikipedia.

If you do decide to use a Wikipedia article, do so only as a starting point. Facts and arguments must be checked up in a reliable work of scholarship, and it is that work that should be cited in your essay or dissertation.

In general, bear in mind that you probably don’t know enough about a subject to sort out the good from the bad in a Wikipedia article; but, if you do know enough, then it is likely that you don’t need to use Wikipedia!

For on-line reference, it is far better to make use of the Library’s Metalib resource. E.g., through Metalib, you can access Oxford Reference Online. To do this: after entering Metalib, click on “Find Resource;” then highlight either “All Cross-Searchable Resources,” or “Key Resources,” and click “Go;” then find Oxford Reference Online in the list which comes up – you may need to hunt through more than one page; do so by clicking “Next.” Oxford Reference Online will give you access to such works as The Oxford Classical Dictionary, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, The Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment, The Oxford Companion to United States History, and a lot of others. I advise you to explore the site, to find anything that may be suited to your needs; but you can, of course, search for a specific title"

The first one was conciderably more funny though...

David Hulbert said...

Fair enough. Wikipedia is more up to date than most other sources. I think I'd prefer to have all the knowledge from Wikipdia than have all the knowledge from a mid-sized book library.

I don't know if there's a higher % of "bad" in Wikipedia than all the Oxford things but I highly doubt it.

Back to work now.

Tommeh said...

there's a thing recently that wikipedia is only slightly more errorful that the Encyclopedia Britannica which is said to be the best of the best. Apaprently on average there's something like 2 mistakes in every britannica article and 3 in each wikipedia one