Quote Originally Posted by Robot_Butler View Post
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.