Thread: What Sleep Paralysis Is, and Why You Don't 'Need' It to WILD

Originally Posted by moonshine

FYI RB's not making reference to that particular discussion. He's making reference to your previous assertions on SP during WILDs.

I was replying to the subject of this discussion. It was your choice to change the subject, not mine.

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

Hey, what do you think about the papers conclusion that atonia occours outside REM? Muscle atonia = rem atonia.
Interesting no?

Sleep paralysis is a sleep disorder where

1. motor activity is inhibited by blockade of neurons in the brainstem
2. the person is normally awake or at least not in REM sleep

I have said very clearly, on multiple occasions, that you can initiate a WILD from sleep paralysis, so please stop lying. Misrepresenting an opponent's position is called a straw man argument. This is one of the lowest and most disingenuous debating tactics, so either you are incapable of rational debate or you are simply dishonest.

What I have also said, and which is entirely consistent with the above as well as existing research, is that if you are not afflicted with the disorder sleep paralysis, there is no evidence that you can induce it at will. In order to falsify this, you would need to show that both points 1 and 2 above are present for subjects that are not afflicted with sleep paralysis.

You have cited the paper by Werth et al. to support your point, but it doesn't show point 1, because the method employed was to measure submental EMG, that is, they simply measured the muscle tension in the subject's chin, and then they set an arbitrary limit and called everything below that limit "atonia". Low muscle tension in the chin is not evidence of blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem.

Originally Posted by Thor

I was replying to the subject of this discussion. It was your choice to change the subject, not mine.

Oh rly? Well speaking of made up arguments, weren't you actually the one who brought up previous discussions.

Originally Posted by Thor

(Didn't we have this discussion last year?)

Yup!

Originally Posted by Thor

Sleep paralysis is a sleep disorder where

1. motor activity is inhibited by blockade of neurons in the brainstem
2. the person is normally awake or at least not in REM sleep

I have said very clearly, on multiple occasions, that you can initiate a WILD from sleep paralysis, so please stop lying. Misrepresenting an opponent's position is called a straw man argument. This is one of the lowest and most disingenuous debating tactics, so either you are incapable of rational debate or you are simply dishonest.

Speaking of straw men, please show me where I've lied? You're right, it is a very low and disingenuous tactic. You should be ashamed!

Heres what you did - in fact - say previously :

Originally Posted by Thor

Well, I actually did say that if you get sleep paralysis you can use it as a tool to initiate WILDs from.

So my position on this subject can be summed up as follows:

1. Sleep paralysis is neither necessary nor sufficient for WILDing.
2. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are determined by your natural predisposition to get it.
3. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are not affected by WILDing.

But I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise if someone could come up with credible evidence to support it.

i.e. you did not accept that WILDers can consciously enter sleep paralysis to enter a lucid dream.

Originally Posted by Thor

What I have also said, and which is entirely consistent with the above as well as existing research, is that if you are not afflicted with the disorder sleep paralysis, there is no evidence that you can induce it at will.

Carefully excluding, of course, the numerous personal testimonies of posters, like RB, who have managed to achieve exactly that.
I believe you decided this doesn't count.

Originally Posted by Thor

You have cited the paper by Werth et al. to support your point, but it doesn't show point 1, because the method employed was to measure submental EMG, that is, they simply measured the muscle tension in the subject's chin, and then they set an arbitrary limit and called everything below that limit "atonia". Low muscle tension in the chin is not evidence of blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem.

LOL. In your opinion Thor.

The Scientists who produced the peer reviewed heavily referenced scientific paper produced by scientists at a scientific institution seem quite clear. The muscle atonia they are refering to is the same in both REM and NREM.
It is no co-incidence that the U pattern they described ramped up, carried on through the REM period, then dropped down again.
It is no co-incidence that people woken at the start and end of NREM periods describe REM like dreams, but weren't running around the labs shouting "Keep the demons away from me, the chicken-horses need sustenance. Now unhand that soup".

Originally Posted by moonshine

Speaking of straw men, please show me where I've lied?

This is what I wrote in What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis:

If you are one of the few people who get sleep paralysis as a disorder, you can know that although it may be scary, it's not in any way dangerous. And you can even turn it into an advantage by initiating WILDs from this state.

Then, earlier in this thread, you wrote:

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

Ergo, you claim that I said the exact opposite of what I did. There are only two possibilities here: either you are unable to comprehend simple sentences, or you are a liar.

Heres what you did - in fact - say previously :

Well, I actually did say that if you get sleep paralysis you can use it as a tool to initiate WILDs from.

So my position on this subject can be summed up as follows:

1. Sleep paralysis is neither necessary nor sufficient for WILDing.
2. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are determined by your natural predisposition to get it.
3. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are not affected by WILDing.

But I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise if someone could come up with credible evidence to support it.

i.e. you did not accept that WILDers can consciously enter sleep paralysis to enter a lucid dream.

Yes, that is what I said, and no one has so far offered any evidence to the contrary of any of these points. Besides, how do you interpret this as "you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams", when in fact I'm saying precisely that you can use SP to enter lucid dreams? Again, I'm forced to conclude that either you are unable to comprehend simple sentences, or you are a liar.

Carefully excluding, of course, the numerous personal testimonies of posters, like RB, who have managed to achieve exactly that.
I believe you decided this doesn't count.

That is correct; personal testimonies do not count. When you aspire to use science to support your claims, you play by the rules of science.

LOL. In your opinion Thor.

The Scientists who produced the peer reviewed heavily referenced scientific paper produced by scientists at a scientific institution seem quite clear. The muscle atonia they are refering to is the same in both REM and NREM.

I agree that the paper is quite clear; it just doesn't support what you think it does. The muscle atonia they are referring to is simply lack of muscle tension in the chin. There is normally least tension in REM and slightly more in NREM. However, EMG data alone does not prove blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem; that actually has to be measured.

It is no co-incidence that the U pattern they described ramped up, carried on through the REM period, then dropped down again.
It is no co-incidence that people woken at the start and end of NREM periods describe REM like dreams, but weren't running around the labs shouting "Keep the demons away from me, the chicken-horses need sustenance. Now unhand that soup".

Your assertions that these things are not coincidences prove nothing whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Thor

This is what I wrote in What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis:

If you are one of the few people who get sleep paralysis as a disorder, you can know that although it may be scary, it's not in any way dangerous. And you can even turn it into an advantage by initiating WILDs from this state.

Then, earlier in this thread, you wrote:

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

Ergo, you claim that I said the exact opposite of what I did. There are only two possibilities here: either you are unable to comprehend simple sentences, or you are a liar.

The third possibility is that you're indulging a no small degree of selective dickish pedantry (colour me surprised). Kinda difficult to lie when the thread in question is a matter of record.

You've latched onto a single quote and are selling it out of context.
Here are the other related quotes.

Originally Posted by moonshine

(Best not to go into last years discussion - wasn't that when you were denying Sleep Paralysis could actually be used in WILD attempts?)

Originally Posted by moonshine

What, last year when you kept repeating that you didn't believe people were entering SP to WILD, despite numerous posters (now including me) describing how they were succesful in doing just that?

Or did you just choose to ignore them.
Your exact claim was that people could not deliberately induce SP to enter a Lucid Dream. i.e. a fairly typical WILD.
No surprise that you haven't gained a much support in that one.

Originally Posted by Thor

That is correct; personal testimonies do not count.

Says you. A lot of Science is based on observation Thor.

Originally Posted by Thor

I agree that the paper is quite clear; it just doesn't support what you think it does. The muscle atonia they are referring to is simply lack of muscle tension in the chin. There is normally least tension in REM and slightly more in NREM. However, EMG data alone does not prove blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem; that actually has to be measured.

So you keep saying.
Yet the scientists are quite clear. They are not differentiating between muscle atonia in REM or NREM.
They are measuring the same thing.

Originally Posted by Thor

Your assertions that these things are not coincidences prove nothing whatsoever.

The scientists disagree:-

In view of the U-shaped distribution of MAN (atonia) episodes it is unlikely that they are analogous events.

Come on thor, are you unable to comprehend simple sentences?

Originally Posted by moonshine

The third possibility is that you're indulging a no small degree of selective dickish pedantry (colour me surprised).

In earlier posts, I said this:

If you are one of the few people who get sleep paralysis as a disorder, you can know that although it may be scary, it's not in any way dangerous. And you can even turn it into an advantage by initiating WILDs from this state.

...and this:

Well, I actually did say that if you get sleep paralysis you can use it as a tool to initiate WILDs from.

So my position on this subject can be summed up as follows:

1. Sleep paralysis is neither necessary nor sufficient for WILDing.
2. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are determined by your natural predisposition to get it.
3. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are not affected by WILDing.

But I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise if someone could come up with credible evidence to support it.

Then you said this:

But both RB and Myself accept that vivid dreams can occour - to some degree - outside of REM. So you may now be arguing with no-one.

FYI RB's not making reference to that particular discussion. He's making reference to your previous assertions on SP during WILDs.

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

I quoted all the preceding paragraphs in your post, in order to show very clearly that this quote was not taken out of context.

Since you claimed that my statements on this subject were the exact contrary of what I actually said, there are only two logical possibilities here:

1. You are an illiterate, unable to comprehend the meaning of simple sentences.
2. You are a liar.

There is no third possibility. If you think there is a third possibility, you don't even understand simple logic either.

So which one is it, moonshine? Are you an illiterate or a liar?

Originally Posted by Thor

In earlier posts, I said this:

If you are one of the few people who get sleep paralysis as a disorder, you can know that although it may be scary, it's not in any way dangerous. And you can even turn it into an advantage by initiating WILDs from this state.

...and this:

Well, I actually did say that if you get sleep paralysis you can use it as a tool to initiate WILDs from.

So my position on this subject can be summed up as follows:

1. Sleep paralysis is neither necessary nor sufficient for WILDing.
2. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are determined by your natural predisposition to get it.
3. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are not affected by WILDing.

But I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise if someone could come up with credible evidence to support it.

Then you said this:

But both RB and Myself accept that vivid dreams can occour - to some degree - outside of REM. So you may now be arguing with no-one.

FYI RB's not making reference to that particular discussion. He's making reference to your previous assertions on SP during WILDs.

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

I quoted all the preceding paragraphs in your post, in order to show very clearly that this quote was not taken out of context.

Since you claimed that my statements on this subject were the exact contrary of what I actually said, there are only two logical possibilities here:

1. You are an illiterate, unable to comprehend the meaning of simple sentences.
2. You are a liar.

There is no third possibility. If you think there is a third possibility, you don't even understand simple logic either.

So which one is it, moonshine? Are you an illiterate or a liar?

And this epic thesis proves you're not engaging in dickish pedantry.....how exactly?

Originally Posted by moonshine

And this epic thesis proves you're not engaging in dickish pedantry.....how exactly?

To anyone who can actually read, this "thesis" proves my point very thoroughly, namely that you grossly misrepresented what I said as the exact opposite of what I did in fact say. This is an indisputable fact. The only thing about this that remains unclear is whether you did it because you were too stupid to understand the difference between a simple statement and its negation, or whether you did it out of malice, with the intent to libel and slander.

So just answer the question, moonshine: Are you an illiterate or a liar?

Originally Posted by BigFan

Wow, you guys really must have some time on your hands and must love to duke it out Anyways, to the OP, I do think it's possible to have an LD in a NREM cycle, but, not sure to the mechanism of this

Yeah I have to admit, "Debates" like this with Thor usually end up Phyrric victories at best.

Its just pretty entertaining to see someone who is clearly an intelligent person put his fingers in his ears and defend his pet theory to the death, regardless of what evidence is put before him.

I particularly like how Thor manages to dismiss the works and assertions of highly qualified scientists and authors by stating "you can't do that" whilst it is painfully obvious that they can and did.

On otherwords, my friend is clever but not smart.