Thread: What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

Just to reiterate, since thor seems to keep ignoring the fact that:

1) You can experience sleep paralysis outside of REM sleep

It is implied by the very definition of sleep paralysis that it occurs outside of REM sleep (ref. note 3), so I can't see how I can be ignoring it.

2) You can remain conscious during REM sleep

Obviously. What makes you think I'm ignoring it.

3) You can actively seek sleep paralysis.

This depends a lot on how you define "seek" and "sleep paralysis". If you define sleep paralysis as REM atonia, there is no point in seeking it because you'll get it unless there is something seriously wrong with you. If you define sleep paralysis as the disorder where REM atonia is activated when you are awake, there is no evidence to suggest that seeking it can affect the chances of actually getting it. The incidence of people that frequently experience sleep paralysis is rather low. For lucid dreamers that incidence is likely to be only marginally higher (since some people discover lucid dreaming because of sleep paralysis). Obviously these people will be just as likely to experience sleep paralysis in a WILD attempt as when going to sleep normally. The unsupported claim is that the majority of people who do not suffer from sleep paralysis would somehow be able to induce it just because they are trying to WILD.

What, exactly do you think WILD is, thor? It is maintaining consciousness through all hypnagogia, into a dream.

Exactly. And if you have a normal physiology your sensory input is suppressed concomitantly with REM atonia, so there is no experience of paralysis. Your kinesthetic sense is switched from your real body to your dream body.

You can make it happen.

No, if you don't ususally get sleep paralysis when going to sleep, you won't get it just by WILDing. At least I haven't seen any evidence that could support this. And besides you don't need it.

Maybe you should sum up your write-up by saying people can chose to use SP as a tool during WILD if they find it helpful, or can chose to avoid it if they find it unpleasant.

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.

Oh you'd be willing to consider it would you
Big of you.

No one is arguing with you on point 1.
Points 2 and 3 are your opinion basically.

The whole point of using SP to LD is by deliberately inducing it. You suggest this is unsupported - although you have decided that tons on anecdotal evidence, common experiences, as well as Laberges guidance itself, doesn't count.

At the moment your argument is simply that you don't believe it. Which, when you get down to it, is no argument at all.

BTW The trick to inducing SP is not to "seek" it. This is common in all of the tutorials.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Oh you'd be willing to consider it would you
Big of you.

argumentum ad hominem

I agree with everything Thor just said. He talks so pretty, I don't think I'm gonna waste my time babbling when he can put the same things so eloquently

Originally Posted by Shift

argumentum ad hominem

Its not a personal attack, though it is tounge in cheek.
Thor would be "willing to consider it" if he is provided evidence.
Although thor has already discounted the considerable evidence which already exists. I don't feel his explanation for doing so is convincing.

Originally Posted by Thor

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.

1. Sleep paralysis can be a helpful tool when learning to WILD.
2. The chances of experiencing sleep paralysis are influenced by your sleeping behavior, which can be altered at will.
3. You can learn to achieve sleep paralysis at will through any of the techniques frequently discussed on this forum and others like it.

I don't know why you are even arguing these points. They are well accepted and easily experienced first hand. There is no need to hypothesize or theorize about something that is so easily experienced. You are really just pulling this bizarre disbelief straight out of your ass.

Originally Posted by Shift

I agree with everything Thor just said. He talks so pretty, I don't think I'm gonna waste my time babbling when he can put the same things so eloquently

Thanks a lot, Shift! That's a very big compliment.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

[/LIST]
I don't know why you are even arguing these points. They are well accepted and easily experienced first hand. There is no need to hypothesize or theorize about something that is so easily experienced. You are really just pulling this bizarre disbelief straight out of your ass.

Don't forget RB, the burden of proof is on us rather than Thor. Apparently.

Originally Posted by Thor

Thanks a lot, Shift! That's a very big compliment.

Honestly, I can't say something without writing 10 pages of nonsense during which I get ridiculously off topic, forget my points, and create analogies that don't make sense to anyone but me Suffice it to say you do a much better job And are worthy of any such compliments

Originally Posted by moonshine

Thor would be "willing to consider it" if he is provided evidence.

No, I didn't write that. I wrote "willing to be convinced otherwise". To be willing to be convinced otherwise is a scientific, skeptical attitude. But it means the evidence would have to be more than just pseudoscientific myths.

For example, everyone knows that the left brain hemisphere is logical and the right hemisphere is creative. Countless books and articles will tell you this. Yet it is all nonsense. It is a pseudoscientific myth that has been repeated so many times that people believe it to be true.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

2. The chances of experiencing sleep paralysis are influenced by your sleeping behavior, which can be altered at will.

That's partially correct. If you are predisposed to sleep paralysis it can be aggravated by sleep deprivation. But remember that the majority of people never experience sleep paralysis.

3. You can learn to achieve sleep paralysis at will through any of the techniques frequently discussed on this forum and others like it.

No, this is a pseudoscientific myth. And all those techniques you are talking about could be improved a lot simply by deleting the word "paralysis". For example, "...and then you will enter sleep paralysis" would become "...and then you will enter sleep", which is far more correct.

Originally Posted by Thor

That's partially correct. If you are predisposed to sleep paralysis it can be aggravated by sleep deprivation. But remember that the majority of people never experience sleep paralysis.

The majority of people do not attempt to deliberately initiate SP. Lucid dreamers do.
You simply refuse to deal with the distinction between Sleep Paralysis and "Isolated" Sleep Paralysis.
Yet psychologists and scientists appear happy to do so.

Originally Posted by Thor

No, this is a pseudoscientific myth.

Aside from simply disregarding (with little justification) the evidence put before you, you have not made any case to support that statement.
Which renders it nothing more than your opinion.

Originally Posted by Thor

And all those techniques you are talking about could be improved a lot simply by deleting the word "paralysis". For example, "...and then you will enter sleep paralysis" would become "...and then you will enter sleep", which is far more correct.

As to what we call the techniques, deleting the word paralysis or not changes nothing. It is, once again, a semantic squabble.

I had another great WILD this weekend where I consciously induced Sleep Paralysis. I was consciously in and out of SP several times before, during, and after the dream. That proves it right there.

If you maintain awareness through the hypnagogia, into SWS, and then into REM, you will stay aware enough to actively experience REM atonia, and therefore induce sleep paralysis.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

I had another great WILD this weekend where I consciously induced Sleep Paralysis. I was consciously in and out of SP several times before, during, and after the dream. That proves it right there.
.

You and numerous others, including Laberge himself.
Yet I note that Thor is still showing up on SP threads and roundly dismissing the notion.

noobie here.
i read thor's essay and appreciate your explanations. i think i'm classified under 'sleep paralysis as a disorder'. i've never thought about using the paralysis or HH to WILD, but it seems improbable with the level of intensity. I've gotten into a WILD before, but when the SP comes, it completly smashes everything else away.
any suggestions? links or other forums?

Originally Posted by Mortalis

Hey, just found an interesting study. Turns out its completely possible to have muscle atonia during non-rem sleep, and actually in some cycles its quite common (close to 40% of the time you are in NREM you are actually in atonia in some cases)

Selective REM sleep deprivation during daytime
II. Muscle atonia in non-REM sleep

Esther Werth, Peter Achermann, and Alexander A. Borbély Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Zürich, 8057 Zürich, Switzerland



"One of the hallmarks of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep is muscle atonia. Here we report extended epochs of muscle atonia in non-REM sleep (MAN). Their extent and time course was studied in a protocol that included a baseline night, a daytime sleep episode with or without selective REM sleep deprivation, and a recovery night. The distribution of the latency to the first occurrence of MAN was bimodal with a first mode shortly after sleep onset and a second mode 40 min later. Within a non-REM sleep episode, MAN showed a U-shaped distribution with the highest values before and after REM sleep. Whereas MAN was at a constant level over consecutive 2-h intervals of nighttime sleep, MAN showed high initial values when sleep began in the morning. Selective daytime REM sleep deprivation caused an initial enhancement of MAN during recovery sleep. It is concluded that episodes of MAN may represent an REM sleep equivalent and that it may be a marker of homeostatic and circadian REM sleep regulating processes. MAN episodes may contribute to the compensation of an REM sleep deficit."

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/co...ull/283/2/R527


edit: Interesting, this might mean that for non sleepwalkers, whenever you dream (REM or NREM) you experience muscle atonia...just thought with all the SP discussion some might find this study interesting.

That makes a lot of sense, Shift. I would especially like to read more about:

REM sleep equivalent and that it may be a marker of homeostatic and circadian REM sleep regulating processes. MAN episodes may contribute to the compensation of an REM sleep deficit.

I'll check out the article. Another piece of the puzzle that can help us understand what regulates our body's dream cycles, and hopefully pin down good times to WILD.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

That makes a lot of sense, Shift. I would especially like to read more about:


I'll check out the article. Another piece of the puzzle that can help us understand what regulates our body's dream cycles, and hopefully pin down good times to WILD.

Yeah, that was an interesting part of the paper... However, I think that in their findings recovery sleep actually had a lower percentage of MAN (muscle atonia in NREM) than daytime sleep...either way its a really cool step towards understanding the mechanisms that control the neurotransmitters of sleep.

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/co...ull/283/2/R527

The methodolgy used in this study is not sufficient to measure REM atonia. Measuring REM atonia is done by monitoring the H-reflex of the soleus muscle (cf. note 14 in my original article). In the cited study they simply measured the submental EMG of the test subject, which showed low muscle tone near REM episodes. Low muscle tone in NREM is nothing new, and it does not imply atonia.

Originally Posted by Thor

The methodolgy used in this study is not sufficient to measure REM atonia. Measuring REM atonia is done by monitoring the H-reflex of the soleus muscle (cf. note 14 in my original article). In the cited study they simply measured the submental EMG of the test subject, which showed low muscle tone near REM episodes. Low muscle tone in NREM is nothing new, and it does not imply atonia.

Well that confirms my theory, you are clearly more knowledgeable about this science than the actual scientists who study it. In fact I'm sure when they said "atonia" they meant "low muscle tone" Or maybe it isn't sufficient because it contradicts your thoughts on the matter...

I vote TROLL.

Originally Posted by Mortalis

I vote TROLL.

I don't think so. I appreciate the research and attention Thor is putting into this. I certainly have learned a lot from reading his cited articles. I think, like most debates, it comes down to fundamental differences in how we are all viewing the problem.

Not to put words into anyone's mouth, but It seems like we are all trying to figure out how far the term Sleep Paralysis should extend. Does it only apply to REM-atonia? Does it apply to NREM-atonia (if such a thing exists)? Does it apply to paralysis due to low muscle tone (NREM-lowtonia LOL). I think it applies to any situation where a person near sleep experiences paralysis, regardless of the biological reasons. I think it describes the experience.

More fundamentally, I think we need to look to science to help understand our experiences. Especially when it comes to something as subjective as consciousness. These definitions are models to describe what is happening to our body. We can't afford to lose track of reality and get trapped in our own definitions as some set of imaginary rules.

What I find frustrating is the so called requirement to provide proof of positive claims, and when it is provided, its never quite good enough. If the study wasn't done in the same way as his cited study, its wrong. If the study calls something atonia he says its actually low muscle tone..I don't think scientists often write atonia if they don't mean atonia...Just my thoughts on his antagonism

To be honest, given the number of threads on SP on the board, Thors opinions don't seem to matter.

I'm content with the definition of SP defined by Laberge, and the definition in common use amongst the Dream Views community. A common definition which lets us communicate readily and offer advice. Semantic quabbles about the correct use are pointless.

Thor, I appreciate the texts you unearthed.
But I'm afraid I can't support assertions which simply ignore the experiences of the community or rely on your "positive claim" boondoggle.

I'm sure you have a lot of valuable insight to share about Lucid dreaming etc and I look forward to seeing you around. But I will take you SP advice with a pinch of salt.

Originally Posted by Mortalis

What I find frustrating is the so called requirement to provide proof of positive claims, and when it is provided, its never quite good enough. If the study wasn't done in the same way as his cited study, its wrong. If the study calls something atonia he says its actually low muscle tone..I don't think scientists often write atonia if they don't mean atonia...Just my thoughts on his antagonism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief in animal rights could be interpreted as inconsistent with eating meat or wearing fur. Noticing the contradiction would lead to dissonance, which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. When people's ideas are consistent with each other, they are in a state of harmony or consonance. If cognitions are unrelated, they are categorized as irrelevant to each other and do not lead to dissonance.

A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can lead to rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice. It can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.

Originally Posted by Mortalis

Well that confirms my theory, you are clearly more knowledgeable about this science than the actual scientists who study it. In fact I'm sure when they said "atonia" they meant "low muscle tone" Or maybe it isn't sufficient because it contradicts your thoughts on the matter...

You are correct: when they said "atonia" they simply meant "low muscle tone". It's never enough to just look at the words; you actually have to figure out the meaning of the words. Unfortunately there is probably no scientific field where every researcher agrees on the definition of every term.

However when atonia is used in the phrase "REM atonia" it has a more restricted meaning, namely that the nerve signals to skeletal muscles are blocked by hyperpolarization of motoneurons. To detect that this blockade is occurring researchers trigger the so-called H-reflex in the soleus muscle in the calf. In REM atonia this reflex disappears completely because the motoneurons are hyperpolarized. In NREM sleep it is lower than in wakefulness but still present, i.e., you get low muscle tone.

In the article you cited, the researchers measured the muscle tone under the chin, and they defined muscle tone below a certain threshold as atonia. This is not the same thing as REM atonia, although REM atonia certianly would imply low muscle tone.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

I don't think so. I appreciate the research and attention Thor is putting into this. I certainly have learned a lot from reading his cited articles. I think, like most debates, it comes down to fundamental differences in how we are all viewing the problem.

Thanks for saying so even though we disagree on several points.

Not to put words into anyone's mouth, but It seems like we are all trying to figure out how far the term Sleep Paralysis should extend. Does it only apply to REM-atonia? Does it apply to NREM-atonia (if such a thing exists)? Does it apply to paralysis due to low muscle tone (NREM-lowtonia LOL). I think it applies to any situation where a person near sleep experiences paralysis, regardless of the biological reasons. I think it describes the experience.

I think this is exactly where we disagree. In my view every person is the expert on their own experience, and they may describe that experience to other people who may compare it to their own.

However, when people start talking about things like "REM sleep", "sleep paralysis", and "REM atonia", they are referring to objective physiological states that have a precisely defined meaning in science, and that they cannot detect with certainty unless they actually sleep in a sleep lab. Thus, when they use these terms in describing their experiences, they create a huge potential for misunderstandings. This is evidenced by the regular influx of people on Dream Views who are wondering if they "were in sleep paralysis". If the term "sleep paralysis" had been clear and unambiguous, this wouldn't happen that often. That's why I think people should only use the term sleep paralysis in the sense of as a disorder.

More fundamentally, I think we need to look to science to help understand our experiences. Especially when it comes to something as subjective as consciousness. These definitions are models to describe what is happening to our body. We can't afford to lose track of reality and get trapped in our own definitions as some set of imaginary rules.

I mostly agree. The big problem here is that the available science either describes neurophysiological processes or cognitive processes, and there isn't much science to connect these.