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

Originally Posted by moonshine

There's three pages of scientific references to the chapter this text quotes.
Enough to satisfy THOR even.

As I said not long ago, you can't just list a bunch of references at the end. You actually need to reference each particular claim, and I don't see any references here.

What exactly is it you think this text proves? Since you seem incabable of understanding elementary properties of statistical distributions, please allow me to spoon feed it to you by using a simple example: May is generally colder than July, but it would be easy to find examples of many May days that were as warm as the average July day. I never said that NREM dreams are the same as REM dreams, just like I wouldn't claim that May is as warm as July. What I said was that there is a significant proportion of NREM dreams, occurring nowhere near REM sleep, that are as vivid and complex as typical REM dreams. The above book quotation notwithstanding, there are plenty of articles that confirm this.

Originally Posted by Thor

As I said not long ago, you can't just list a bunch of references at the end. You actually need to reference each particular claim, and I don't see any references here.

What are you banging on about Thor? Of course I can. As of course can the author of the original work. My sincere apologies for quoting from a popular science book written by a PHD and a Fellow of medicine. What was I thinking.

If you want an complete list of references, buy the book

Originally Posted by Thor

What exactly is it you think this text proves? Since you seem incabable of understanding elementary properties of statistical distributions, please allow me to spoon feed it to you by using a simple example: May is generally colder than July, but it would be easy to find examples of many May days that were as warm as the average July day. I never said that NREM dreams are the same as REM dreams, just like I wouldn't claim that May is as warm as July. What I said was that there is a significant proportion of NREM dreams, occurring nowhere near REM sleep, that are as vivid and complex as typical REM dreams. The above book quotation notwithstanding, there are plenty of articles that confirm this.

Although in point of fact it seems to be a relatively insignificant proportion of dreams, which probably co-incide with the transition period when Muscle (REM) atonia is kicking in at the start and end of NREM periods.

Originally Posted by moonshine

What are you banging on about Thor? Of course I can. As of course can the author of the original work. My sincere apologies for quoting from a popular science book written by a PHD and a Fellow of medicine. What was I thinking.

If you want an complete list of references, buy the book

A mere list of references is not sufficient by itself; each particular claim needs to be supported by at least one reference.

Although in point of fact it seems to be a relatively insignificant proportion of dreams, which probably co-incide with the transition period when Muscle (REM) atonia is kicking in at the start and end of NREM periods.

Some studies cite figures of 10-30%, while the more conservative studies cite 5-10%. This is very significant. And quite to the contrary of what you are saying, many of these dream reports were obtained nowhere near REM sleep. You can find the citations in note 11 of What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis. In particular the NREM dream report quoted in that note was obtained 25 minutes after the last REM episode.

Originally Posted by Thor

A mere list of references is not sufficient by itself; each particular claim needs to be supported by at least one reference.

Yet again, says you.

But look.....
http://www.amazon.com/Counting-Sheep...0859417&sr=8-2

Dr Martin appears to have been able to publish an index of references at the back of the book without breaking the laws of space time and causing a chain reaction which destroys the universe.

Go figure

Originally Posted by moonshine

What are you banging on about Thor? Of course I can. As of course can the author of the original work. My sincere apologies for quoting from a popular science book written by a PHD and a Fellow of medicine. What was I thinking.

Simply relying on someone with a PhD and Fellows of Medicine is not enough to say that they are right. Even a Dr. is wrong on many occasions. You are failing to support your own support.

If you want an complete list of references, buy the book

Deliberate avoidance of justifying your own support. This is another way of saying, "I do not know what I am supporting, so go please read it for me."

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

Pointing the finger in return of an accusation does not defend yourself. This is an illogical fallacy that you are imposing by defending yourself via attacking the accuser. Ad hominems are soon to follow along with other invalid arguments.

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 :

Notice the attempt to save face by attacking the accuser again. This is failing to justify your own statements again. Please learn to support your statements and justifications without relying on attacking others.

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.

I am curious to investigate this.

[quote]

Originally Posted by moonshine

Yet again, says you.

But look.....
http://www.amazon.com/Counting-Sheep...0859417&sr=8-2

Dr Martin appears to have been able to publish an index of references at the back of the book without breaking the laws of space time and causing a chain reaction which destroys the universe.

Go figure

Also, I can reference a chain of books, by PhD writers, who will quote completely unreliable sources. This point proves nothing but the laziness to declare your own arguments.

To investigate this thread further, I will look into Thor's posts next.

Please understand that forum thread debates are easy to digress as they take place over days and that you guys may very likely be running in circles. Try to re-state your original arguments in a more declarative style to help reconcile.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Simply relying on someone with a PhD and Fellows of Medicine is not enough to say that they are right. Even a Dr. is wrong on many occasions. You are failing to support your own support.

A fair point, as Thor clearly demonstrates. That said, theres a lot to be said for experience and expertise in a specific field, which is why I'm inclined to accept the conclusions of the scientists as opposed to Thors simplistic argument that conclusions don't stand unless they are presented in a way which is acceptable to Thor.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Deliberate avoidance of justifying your own support. This is another way of saying, "I do not know what I am supporting, so go please read it for me."

Not really. I've deliberately avoiding retyping numerous pages of related scientific references, for what I would hope are obvious reasons.
In relation to the section which I quoted, I provided the Author and Title of the book. Clearly, Insofar as I can, I've provided the source.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Pointing the finger in return of an accusation does not defend yourself. This is an illogical fallacy that you are imposing by defending yourself via attacking the accuser.

Incorrect. It was a fairly simple accusation. Thor stated that I had brought up the previous discussion. In reality Thor did. In any event this is a very minor point. I'd suggest its a bit embarassing for either of us to make too much out of it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Ad hominems are soon to follow along with other invalid arguments.

Well that's the 'Net for you.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Notice the attempt to save face by attacking the accuser again. This is failing to justify your own statements again. Please learn to support your statements and justifications without relying on attacking others.

Can't say I agree. Having just essentially been branded a 'tard or a liar by the lofty Dr Thor, it is, in my view, perfectly reasonable to directly respond to the same.

In any event, I make no apologies for deliberately avoiding any in depth response to some of Thors pompous, and dare I say pointless, jargon laced critiques.

For example http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...2&postcount=50 which was essentially a pretentious argument about how to argue.

In addition, I admit it, simply ignoring the same pyrrhic effort gave me a small degree of satisfaction.

I would say that I have in fact been both supporting my statements and engaged in low level juvenile bickering.
And lets be clear, Thors propensity for big words makes him no less childish in his motivations.

And, in my case, your decision to focus solely on the bickering doesn't to justice to the case I've been making.
Hope we can sort that in future discussions.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am curious to investigate this.

Good to have you on board.

Originally Posted by moonshine

A fair point, as Thor clearly demonstrates. That said, theres a lot to be said for experience and expertise in a specific field, which is why I'm inclined to accept the conclusions of the scientists as opposed to Thors simplistic argument that conclusions don't stand unless they are presented in a way which is acceptable to Thor.

Please pay attention - I am only speaking to you in my post, not Thor. Please stop defending yourself by trying to attack others - it does nothing but make you look like an ass. I made a completely separate post for Thor to keep the sake of discussion going.

Not really. I've deliberately avoiding retyping numerous pages of related scientific references, for what I would hope are obvious reasons.
In relation to the section which I quoted, I provided the Author and Title of the book. Clearly, Insofar as I can, I've provided the source.

You have provided the source in an incredibly lazy fashion. This is parallel to me now saying, "please go read ethics for dummies" instead of elaborating my points.

You are not offering anything substantial or credible besides an arbitrary name and it is up to you to make specific references to why you cite those specific sources rather than simply randomly throw around book names and authors to try and defend yourself.

Otherwise, we would all just say, "I am right because Darwin wrote Origin of Species, oh and Dawkins wrote X" - this does nothing at all but rely too heavily on an illogical fallacy of authorship reliance.

Incorrect. It was a fairly simple accusation. Thor stated that I had brought up the previous discussion. In reality Thor did. In any event this is a very minor point. I'd suggest its a bit embarassing for either of us to make too much out of it.

You're still failing to justify your own point and again resort to attacking Thor instead of supporting the accusation to yourself. If the statement is wrong about yourself, it should be easy to clear up rather than resort to "YOU DID IT TOO" response.

Well that's the 'Net for you.

Either you misunderstood my point or you are using an ad hominem against me which, judging by your posting content, is typical. Please consider the fact that your social and debate skills will resort in the result of you feeling lonely and angry at the world rather than tempting to reconcile and consider that you might be wrong on a few things and that you can learn from others.

Can't say I agree. Having just essentially been branded a 'tard or a liar by the lofty Dr Thor, it is, in my view, perfectly reasonable to directly respond to the same.

That is a leading question that Thor did, yes, but this does not save your face. Please stop trying to defend yourself by attacking others, it's beginning to look desperate.

In any event, I make no apologies for deliberately avoiding any in depth response to some of Thors pompous, and dare I say pointless, jargon laced critiques.

You are still significantly failing at justifying yourself by attacking others. Your ad hominems do nothing but demonstrate your lacking perspicacity for logical and civil dispute.

For example http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...2&postcount=50 which was essentially a pretentious argument about how to argue.

My original point that you are responding to now is that you cannot justify yourself without attacking others and here you are sourcing a post by someone else beside yourself. You have illustrated your failure to adapt to debate ethics. Please consider adapting appropriate behaviour in debates or you may find yourself alone and still angry with the world thinking, "THEY'RE ALL IDIOTS AND DONT UNDERSTAND ME!"

In addition, I admit it, simply ignoring the same pyrrhic effort gave me a small degree of satisfaction.

I would say that I have in fact been both supporting my statements and engaged in low level juvenile bickering.
And lets be clear, Thors propensity for big words makes him no less childish in his motivations.

Actually, as I have shown, you have not been supporting your statements. You have been lazy and simply throwing around names without specific references or sources. When a paper is written about a topic, the sources are usually to specific pages not the entire book. This is just the same as saying, "I don't know, go read it yourself."

And, in my case, your decision to focus solely on the bickering doesn't to justice to the case I've been making.
Hope we can sort that in future discussions.

I could just instead lock the thread like most mod responses are, but I try and reconcile first. First by interjecting with my own critique and then resorting to PM's and then locking. I do not like ending the discussion - I know that you enjoy the debate, however "bad" it may be, and come back to read our responses and I like that! I like the discussion on here! The bickering is bad, and I'd like it to be civil and respectful.

However, if you want me to instead ignore the bickering and let it go on and on, I won't - I'd rather lock it. But what I most don't understand here is that your point in this quote is that I ought to, as a mod, not care about people bickering on the board??

Is this just an example of your taste for bitter dispute or am I missing something?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Try to re-state your original arguments in a more declarative style to help reconcile.

Alrighty then.

1) In Thors opinion the Term "Sleep Paralysis" can only be used with reference to the sleeping disorder. The majority of posters of DV understand the common meaning of "Sleep Paralysis", whether its a Colloquial term or not. Even if thor is technically correct (and the jury is still out on that) the term Sleep Paralysis (as used by laberge) will remain in common use amongst the lucid dreaming community

2) Thor states the Sleep paralysis is actually REM Atonia and can only take place in REM sleep. For this reason he has concluded that, outside of "Sleep Paralysis Disorder" there is no evidence that you can induce Sleep paralysis to WILD. His salient point seems to be that as you can only experience REM Atonia in REM sleep then you can't be experiencing REM atonia as you initiate a WILD.

This has been disputed and reference has been made to the significant records of anecdotal experience amongst the Lucid dreaming community. More on this later.

3) Further discussion has revealed that REM like dreams do indeed occur during a nominal period of NREM sleep (something which Thor actually initially pointed out). However, the majority of NREM dreams are more akin to thought dreams.

Now it makes sense that Sleep Paralysis isn't required during NREM as you're not inhabiting 3D virtual dream worlds and so will not run around the bedroom as you act out your dreams. But what of those REM like dreams.

Well the paper that I linked concludes that REM atonia actually occours outside of REM sleep (making the term Muscle Atonia more accurate). In point of fact it ramps up before REM sleep, and drops down after REM sleep. It makes logical sense that the REM like NREM dreams occour when Muscle Atonia is ramping up and down - therefore preventing you acting out the REM like dreams.

The paper concludes that

These findings indicate that a REM sleep episode is not sharply delimited but that it has antecedents during NREM sleep and that it vanishes gradually in the succeeding NREM sleep episode.

I would suggest that this makes sense to WILDers. WILD attempts are clearly not simple on/off physical/mental functions. A transition period is clearly observed.

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

THOR Insists the REM Atonia can ONLY occur in REM sleep - hence the name. Anything outwith REM atonia is dismissed by THOR as low muscle tone. But this seems to be a simple semantic stubborness.

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

The paper concludes that the U shaped curve clearly indicates that the ramping up and down of Muscle Atonia at either side of the REM period (Where REM atonia occours) is unlikely to be co-incidental. If we accept that REM Atonia (muscle atonia in REM) and MAN (Muscle Atonia in NREM) are similar physiological functions, the observations and theory holds together quite logically.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Alrighty then.

1) In Thors opinion the Term "Sleep Paralysis" can only be used with reference to the sleeping disorder. The majority of posters of DV understand the common meaning of "Sleep Paralysis", whether its a Colloquial term or not. Even if thor is technically correct (and the jury is still out on that) the term Sleep Paralysis (as used by laberge) will remain in common use amongst the lucid dreaming community

I agree, these are good points that Thor does need to support.

2) Thor states the Sleep paralysis is actually REM Atonia and can only take place in REM sleep. For this reason he has concluded that, outside of "Sleep Paralysis Disorder" there is no evidence that you can induce Sleep paralysis to WILD. His salient point seems to be that as you can only experience REM Atonia in REM sleep then you can't be experiencing REM atonia as you initiate a WILD.

This has been disputed and reference has been made to the significant records of anecdotal experience amongst the Lucid dreaming community. More on this later.

What were the references aside from DV itself...? Hopefully more than just book naming.

3) Further discussion has revealed that REM like dreams do indeed occur during a nominal period of NREM sleep (something which Thor actually initially pointed out). However, the majority of NREM dreams are more akin to thought dreams.

Right, I think this is agreed upon with everyone, no..?

THOR Insists the REM Atonia can ONLY occur in REM sleep - hence the name. Anything outwith REM atonia is dismissed by THOR as low muscle tone. But this seems to be a simple semantic stubborness.

Asserting that REM Atonia can only occur in REM sleep is interesting and I'd like to see more evidence. I am sure that there are rare cases that can quell this assertion, but I cannot source any at the moment.

Good points Moonshine, I look forward to Thor's response.

~

Just so that, if EWOLD is discussed, everyone knows what it says in EWOLD:

While all this activity is happening in your brain, your body remains almost completely still (except for small twitches), because it is temporarily paralyzed during REM sleep to prevent you from acting out your dreams. The “sleep paralysis” of REM sleep doesn’t always turn off immediately upon awakening; this is why you may have experienced waking up and not being able to move for a minute. Sleep paralysis can seem a terrifying experience, but actually it is quite harmless, and indeed, can even be useful for inducing lucid dreams (see Chapter 4). (EWOLD, p.~23)

Sometimes the REM systems don’t turn on or off at the same time. For example, you may awaken partially from REM sleep, before the paralysis system turns off, so that your body is still paralyzed even though you are otherwise awake. Sleep paralysis, as this condition is called, can occur while people are falling asleep (rarely) or waking up (more frequently). If you don’t know what’s happening, your first experience with sleep paralysis can terrifying. People typically struggle in a fruitless effort re or to fully wake up. In fact, such emotional panic reactions are completely counterproductive; they are likely to stimulate the limbic (emotional) areas of the brain and cause the REM state to persist. The fact is, sleep paralysis is harmless. Sometimes when it happens to you, you feel as if you are suffocating or in the presence of a nameless evil. But this is just the way your half-dreaming brain interprets these abnormal conditions: something terrible must be happening! The medieval stories of incubus attacks (malevolent spirits believed to descend upon and have sex with sleeping women) probably derived from fantastically over-interpreted experiences of sleep paralysis. The next time you experience sleep paralysis, simply remember to relax. Tell yourself that you are in the same state now as you are several hours every night during REM sleep. It will do you no harm and will pass in a few minutes. Sleep paralysis is not only nothing to be frightened of, it can be something to be sought after and cultivated. Whenever you experience sleep paralysis you are on the threshold REM sleep. You have, as it were, one foot in the dream state and one in the waking state. Just step over and you’re in the world of lucid dreams. In the following exercises we sent several techniques for taking that step. (EWOLD, p. ~79)

To me it seems like the biggest problem is websites like DV having inaccurate tutorials and videos online teaching WILD/AP that inaccurately use the term, than EWOLD itself. Just think, if he had said 'paralysis' instead of 'sleep paralysis', or used REM atonia accurately... Quite honestly I don't think the average person pays that much attention to the slight details in EWOLD like this, and so if the rest of us just use the terms intelligently and accurately we can shift the use of terminology to be accurate.

*bows out*

PS I really wish that there was a study on definitively, whether people can learn to get themselves into SP and assuming yes (since I assume yes) what the learning curve is like on average, if you're predisposed to it, if you can get it easier if you suffer it, if it's really better to lay on your back, blah blah blah, and to be really monitoring the muscles and not just relying on self reports of mere hypnagogic hallucinations rather than true paralysis. And then we could work on why it is that SP eclipses HIT and VILD.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What were the references aside from DV itself...? Hopefully more than just book naming.
~

Sorry, I got distracted responding to your other post.

Thor asserts that, as we cannot wire our brains and bodies up to laboratory equipment, that the significant amount of anecdotal evidence (i.e. the descriptions of DV Lucid Dreamer WILD attempts) is worthless.

This is clearly not the case. It is no co-incidence that so many of us have experienced the WILD transition into a dream exactly as described by laberge.

I my self have felt the "SP wave" on a number of occasions.

Crucially, I have experienced it on occasions when I have not been trying to wild. Once was falling asleep. I suddenly woke up having felt as if I had been pulled from the bed by my feet. Gave me a fright!

I have also experienced it once when slowly waking up. In what I can only assume was SP "switching off" I felt the wave just before I became fully conscious and awake.

On another occasion when WILDing I very much experienced some of the symptoms of Sleep Paralysis Disorder. I felt the vibrations and the SP wave. I also felt like I was being roughly touched by some malevolent entity. Creepy. After which I dropped into a dream.
I personally didn't choose to open my eyes or test the paralysis, but there are posters who have indeed done the same.

Simply rejecting these and other testimonies based on nothing but personal opinion is neither credible or logical.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right, I think this is agreed upon with everyone, no..?
~

To varying degrees I think. Until recently I understood that we did dream thought like dreams during on NREM, but I only recently became aware of the REM like NREM dreams, which, on review of the evidence, I now fully accept.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Asserting that REM Atonia can only occur in REM sleep is interesting and I'd like to see more evidence. I am sure that there are rare cases that can quell this assertion, but I cannot source any at the moment.
~

I would suggest that the "REM" in "REM Ationa" is no longer sufficent evidence.

As far as quelling the assertion, the paper I have linked to previously, IMO, does just that. Science appears to have moved on, and the case is now being made for a transition zone between NREM and REM sleep where both
REM Like Dreams and "REM-Atonia" like "Muscle Atonia in NREM" occours.