Lucid dreaming - changing location?

I’m enjoying success these days with finding the characters I seek in a lucid dream (very helpful when interviewing the characters in my books), but I was wondering if anyone had any tips on changing location? The most effective method I’m using is diving through a window, with the expectation of the new location often making it so - but are there any other strategies that people have used?

Also, I haven’t found much of a LD community on Twitter. Is there a Twitter community I’m missing out on?

This may be of interest. Anil Seth’s proposal of human ability for “controlled hallucination”

Hi @write4u - yes, you shared this with me on an earlier thread - fascinating!

Thanks BJ,

I am not too familiar with the phenomenon of lucid dreaming, other than what I have read in connection with the role microtubules play in the emergence of consciousness.

The entire subject of the mind as a semi-autonomous product of the brain is fascinating. Maybe some other reader may be able to assist.

Well, if it’s dreams you want to learn about might I suggest that you check out some of the work of Mark Solms.


Solms, M. (2000). Dreaming and REM sleep are controlled by different brain mechanisms. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 23, 843-50 [Target paper with 39 peer commentaries].


Solms, M. (2001). The neurochemistry of dreaming: cholinergic and dopaminergic hypotheses. In Perry, E., Ashton, H. & Young, A. (eds.), The Neurochemistry of Consciousness. Advances in Consciousness Research series (pp. 123-131). Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.


Solms, M. (2011) Neurobiology and the neurological basis of dreaming. In P. Montagna & S. Chokroverty (eds.), Handbook of Clinical Neurology 98 (3rd series), Sleep Disorders – Part 1 (pp. 519-544). New York: Elsevier.


A standard system for conceptualizing and classifying disordered and abnormal dreaming has not yet been developed, in part a result of the wide disparities in approach to dreaming that presently characterize the field. In this chapter, several categories of abnormal dreaming are considered.

After a brief review of dreaming in relation to the sleep cycle and the psychology of dreaming, a number of disorders of dreaming that present as clinical problems or symptoms are described. Particular emphasis is placed on nightmare disorder, the sole diagnosis in the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, 2nd edition for which pathology of dreaming is the primary feature.

The definition, clinical features and dimensions, conceptual issues, formal diagnostic criteria, differential diagnosis, and treatment approaches for nightmare disorder are delineated.

The value of considering nightmares in their rich, complex relationship to the psychology of the dreamer, as well as from a sleep medicine perspective, is underlined. Other clinical problems of dreaming, some related to recognized sleep disorders such as sleep terrors, narcolepsy, and REM sleep behavior disorder, are characterized. Some significant abnormalities of dreaming that do not typically present as clinical problems are then reviewed. Finally, the phenomenon of “lucid dreaming” is considered as an unusual variant of normal dreaming.



The Neuropsychology of Dreaming: A Clinico-Anatomical Study.

Mark Solm, ©1997

Mahwah, N.J. | Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Published November 24, 2015 by Psychology Press, (310 Pages)


ISBN 9781138989580


Book Description

In this book, Mark Solms chronicles a fascinating effort to systematically apply the clinico-anatomical method to the study of dreams.

The purpose of the effort was to place disorders of dreaming on an equivalent footing with those of other higher mental functions such as the aphasias, apraxias, and agnosias.

Modern knowledge of the neurological organization of human mental functions was grounded upon systematic clinico-anatomical investigations of these functions under neuropathological conditions.

It therefore seemed reasonable to assume that equivalent research into dreaming would provide analogous insights into the cerebral organization of this important but neglected function.

Accordingly, the main thrust of the study was to identify changes in dreaming that are systematically associated with focal cerebral pathology and to describe the clinical and anatomical characteristics of those changes. The goal, in short, was to establish a nosology of dream disorders with neuropathological significance.

Unless dreaming turned out to be organized in a fundamentally different way than other mental functions, there was every reason to expect that this research would cast light on the cerebral organization of the normal dream process.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Interpretation of Dreams and the Neurosciences - Mark Solms

March 21, 1999 - The British Psychoanalystical Society.


Shortly after Freud’s death, the study of dreaming from the perspective of neuroscience began in earnest. Initially, these studies yielded results which were hard to reconcile with the psychological conclusions set out in this book [Traumdeutung (see footnote)]. …

… The picture of the dreaming brain which emerges from recent neuroscientific research may therefore be summarised as follows: the process of dreaming is initiated by an arousal stimulus. If this stimulus is sufficiently intense or persistent to activate the motivational mechanisms of the brain (or if it attracts the interest of these mechanisms for some other reason), the dream process proper begins. …

… The credibility of Freud’s theory was, in short, severely strained by the first wave of data about dreaming that was obtained from ‘anatomical preparations’ (Freud, 1900a, p536): and the neuroscientific world (indeed the scientific world as a whole) reverted to the pre-psychoanalytic view that ‘dreams are froth’ (Freud, 1900a, p133).

However, alongside the observations just reviewed, which provided an increasingly precise and detailed picture of the neurology of REM sleep, a second body of evidence gradually began to accumulate, which led some neuroscientists to recognise that perhaps REM sleep was not the physiological equivalent of dreaming after all (Solms, In Press). …

This hypothesis, that two separate mechanisms – one for REM and one for dreaming – exist in the brain, can easily be tested by a standard neurological research method known as clinico-anatomical correlation. …

… Thus, Freud’s major inferences from psychological evidence regarding both the causes and the function of dreaming are at least compatible with, and even indirectly supported by, current neuroscientific knowledge. Does the same apply to the mechanism of dreaming? …

The picture of the dreaming brain which emerges from recent neuroscientific research may therefore be summarised as follows: the process of dreaming is initiated by an arousal stimulus. If this stimulus is sufficiently intense or persistent to activate the motivational mechanisms of the brain (or if it attracts the interest of these mechanisms for some other reason), the dream process proper begins. …


Further Reading

Freud, S. (1893) ‘Some Points for a Comparative Study of Organic and Hysterical Motor Paralyses’. Standard Edition, 1: 160-172.

Solms,M. (1995) ‘Is the Brain more Real than the Mind?’

Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 9: 107-120.

I just happened to be working on a bibliographic sampling of the man’s work so had this handy.

I’ll admit the subject used to interest me in younger decades, inspired by Carlos Castaneda’s, or should I say Don Juan’s, Dreamer and the Dreamed. But it came and went.

Past decades the fact that I don’t remember my dreams much, (whereas my wife has long recollections and can describe her’s in amazing detail), has probably influenced my lack of interest. About all I get out of thinking about my dreams is a gentle reassurance that I must not have deep issues that my psyche is wrestling with.

Actually, you can also go to YouTube and listen to his talks, he’s not the most polished speaker but he’s good and even better is that he has an amazingly superb mastery of his topic and he’s such an amazingly grounded intelligent person that I’ve gone through a dozen of them with riveted interest, without ever feeling like I’m listening to the same talk over and over, which is the case with too many others. Every talk has been fascinatingly informative reinforcing others, while always introducing new ideas.


The Neural Mechanisms of Dreaming, Prof. Mark Solms

Wits NeuRL - Jul 30, 2019 - 1 hour, YouTube


Professor Mark Solms from the University of Cape Town (UCT) a question (see below) posed to him on UCT's free online course, "What is a Mind?", hosted by FutureLearn.

UCT CILT - 2016 - YouTube

Ask Mark 3.6 - Consciousness and dreaming

Ask Mark 4.1 - On Jung and dreams

Ask Mark 5.12 - The function of dreams

That last one touches on my above comment.


@citizenschallengev3 Thanks for sharing these, I’ll take a look. The Neural Mechanisms of Dreaming sounds particularly interesting.

@write4u Microtubules and the emergence of consciousness? Tell me more! Is there reading on this that you would recommend? Thanks.

If I may indulge briefly on a slightly lucid dream I had not too long ago:

Driving a familiar, hilly road with a friend in the passenger seat.

The road suddenly, unexpectedly ended and somehow I was hanging onto my friend who was dangling over the edge of a cliff / ravine.

I thought to myself “This is my chance to fly in my dream!” (which I haven’t done for awhile), but in the same instant thinking if my friend can’t fly, he’ll fall and die. I ended up staying - and waking up. … and it’s still been awhile since I’ve been able to fly. ?


@write4u Microtubules and the emergence of consciousness? Tell me more! Is there reading on this that you would recommend? Thanks.
Yes, I have lots. Microtubules (MT) are a hobby of mine as they directly address the question of consciousness.
The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons appears to corroborate claims that consciousness derives from deeper-level, finer-scale activities inside brain neurons. The eminent mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose in the 1990s suggested that quantum vibrational computations in microtubules were “orchestrated” (“Orch”) by synaptic inputs and memory stored in microtubules. They may be the seat of stored information that neurons (and glia exchanges) intermediate. Moreover, in a new development it is thought that Microtubule quantum vibrations (e.g. in the megahertz frequency range) appear to interfere and produce much slower EEG “beat frequencies.”

In Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory, Penrose and Hameroff suggest, “Consciousness depends on anharmonic vibrations of microtubules inside neurons, similar to certain kinds of Indian music, but unlike Western music, which is harmonic."

On a more professional level from the horse’s mouth:

@mrmhead - How frustrating! Have you heard of the Wake Back to Bed method? That’s the one that I have the most success with.

@write4u - I am fascinated by consciousness. I read the Very Short Introduction (Oxford Uni Press series) to Consciousness and questions it all the time. Is that you in the video then? I will watch this later.

I am fascinated by consciousness. I read the Very Short Introduction (Oxford Uni Press series) to Consciousness and questions it all the time. Is that you in the video then? I will watch this later.
Like you I am fascinated with the subject of consciousness in general, but I have no axe to grind. I like researching and collecting articles of interest in the hope of discussing them with the good folks here.

I’ll look around in my library for articles on dreaming as it relates to microtubules., which is my main area of consciousness research.

There are several cutting edge hypotheses dealing with consciousness as an emergent excellence.; Orchestrated Objective Reduction (ORCH OR) (Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose) , Integrated Information Theory (IIT) (Giulio Tononi, F Francis), and Toward Theory of Consciousness (TTC) (David Chalmers), Adaptive Resonance Theory (ART) (Stephen Grossberg), Consciousness is a Mathematical Neural Pattern (Max Tegmark), Controlled Hallucinations (Anil Seth).

Here is another interesting lecture by David Chalmers (he coined “The hard problem of consciousness”)

To which Max Tegmark replied: “rather than asking about the hard problem of consciousness, why not start with the hard fact that humans ARE conscious and that we may already have all the ingredient for emergent consciousness. Consciousness is a specific arrangement (pattern) of neurons in our brains.”

I love this stuff!

I just watched the Quantum Consciousness video… fantastic. It really tied so many of my beliefs together. I can’t pretend I understood more than perhaps 25-50% of it, but found it fascinating nonetheless. I loved the info on how memory is encoded and the implications of epigenetic memory. Still trying to wrap my head around the reproduction of space-time qualia in the brain. The sound recording was amazing… how consciousness is more like music than computation. It makes me wonder on the effect of Tibetan Bowl meditations, which I have thoroughly enjoyed in the past.

For all the “right-on” observations Chalmers makes - seems to me when he starts demanding that science answer the WHY? question, he’s going over the cliff.


When has science ever been about “attacking”* the WHY? questions? Isn’t that what religion is there for?

(* 3:20min, I found that choice of word, very weird and off putting. I myself don’t attack subjects I want to understand, I embrace them.)

Compounding that problem is that he never mentions evolution.

For instance, science can tell us all sorts of things about the How of Trees, but if you want to get an inkling about the Why of Trees, you must reach into deep-time and understand what unfolded evolutionarily, which does provide strong hints as to why trees exist. Now of course consciousness is way more complex, still,

(no matter how smart your brain is) You’ll never understand “consciousness” without gaining a solid evolutionary understanding of the development of earliest animals. But they don’t do that. Instead many want to jump to universal consciousness, in a universe that is mainly nonliving matter and energy.

Instead, seems to me, that too many deep thinkers have so fallen in love with their own ideas, that instead of keeping it to the ‘boring’ physical and within realm of sober science, they get lost within their mindscape and rather reach for meta-physical excuses while distorting science into what it isn’t.


Seems another excellent example of why the need to explicitly appreciate our “Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide” which very few seems to care to even think about.


Science does not ask “Why?” Because it can only answer “What?” and “How?”

Thomas P Seager, PhD
Sep 5, 2018