what the fukk does that have to do with anything
you presented this paper as
I'm pointing out that all that was presented in there, review or not, is a UN-TESTED UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS
I read the paper. And it reads to me as a neuroscientist basically admitting that all that stuff we have been discussing in this thread which he refers to as phenomenology as yet to be explained by, using his word, systematic empirical study
Maybe it went over my head, maybe I'm an amateur trying to make sense of all this.
But my amateur mind right now tells me the first and only scientific "study" you have used here to support your premises DO NOT SUPPORT THEM AT ALL
to my understanding thats one of the best explanation of lucid dreaming we have.
GRANTED no one takes the time (or has the money) to investigate this shyt then we do with what we can
Fact is...its all neurology at the end of the day.
ya'll want it to be some sort of external spirit magic....and its not.
So just get over this shyt and stop trying to make this harder than it is.
But like I said...its easier for you guys to not invest any effort into learning how the brain works but instead throw caution to the wind and invest heavily in this pseudoscience jargon of sitting around and coming for theories of psychology without having to actually be responsible for researching it yourselves.