Thread: What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis

Originally Posted by Shift

Moonshine, I'm curious- have you had any scientific training?

Have you? Has thor? I admit his his cut and paste skills are strong.
But theres not much Scientific about his "proving a positive" claim, or his simple dismissal of significant anecdotal evidence. A big part of science is after all observation.

Originally Posted by Shift

Yes, using sleep paralysis to mean any and all hypnagogia was wrong.

Which absolutely no one has disagreed with.

Originally Posted by Shift

Or, we could sit in endless debate about how semantics don't matter while simultaneously teaching all newbies that instead of just "Fun buzzing hypnagogia" they are going to be paralyzed (*cue scream*) and see hags and demons.

And thats an accurate representation of this ongoing discusion is it?

Originally Posted by Shift

In fact let's confuse them all by blowing this thing out of proportion, and giving them the notion that they should be able to trick their bodies into a physiological disorder, or to stay up for hours attempting to remain conscious while they fall asleep, when they don't really need to do that anyway. We can all run around claiming to to be in REM sleep or sleep paralysis or whatever without any actual evidence. Or, we can hold ourselves and the members of the site to a higher, legitimate, and accurate standard of not being morons.

Are you therefore 100% behind Thors assertions that the following don't exist?

Originally Posted by Thor

[LIST][*]Myth 1: That it's possible to willfully induce REM atonia outside of REM sleep and that a large proportion of people who WILD regularly do this.[*]Myth 2: That it's normal to experience REM atonia in REM sleep.[*]Myth 3: That sensations like the lead blanket feeling, numbness, tingling, vibrations, etc. are symptoms of REM atonia occurring outside of REM sleep.

And by REM atonia, Thor means what everyone else has, does, and will always call Sleep Paralysis. As does Dr Stehen Laberge Ph.D.

Personally I would not expect a "Dream Guide" to so casually dismiss such a substantial section of Lucid Dreaming knowledge.

That said, both you and Thor are entitled to your opinions.

Given the number of threads on the boards discussing sleep paralysis, the community can make its own minds up.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Have you?

I have. Not as much as I want, though I plan on continuing. Three intensive years of scientific training and analysis in biology, psychology, and chemistry. Which is enough to at least train me to think about such things scientifically. I can't speak for Thor, but he's done an excellent job of reviewing the literature and drawing logical conclusions and supporting those conclusions with significant evidence.

Originally Posted by Shift

Moonshine, I'm curious- have you had any scientific training?

????

Originally Posted by moonshine

Are you therefore 100% behind Thors assertions that the following don't exist?

Are you intentionally misinterpreting what I write? No wonder this conversation isn't getting anywhere. I never said that I agreed to that, and nor do I. Lucid dreamers blur the lines between sleep and wakefullness. I think it's absolutely possible that we can train ourselves to remain conscious enough to experience the onset of paralysis.

Originally Posted by moonshine

And by REM atonia, Thor means what everyone else has, does, and will always call Sleep Paralysis. As does Dr Stehen Laberge Ph.D.

That's exactly right, and we ought to do something to fix that.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Personally I would not expect a "Dream Guide" to so casually dismiss such a substantial section of Lucid Dreaming knowledge.

Knowledge implies understanding. There is a blatant absence of understanding going on. Dismissing? Hell no. I'm seeking to clarify this confusion and to teach people what these things are and to use proper terminology and analysis. Not to muddle things up as so many have done.

Originally Posted by moonshine

That said, both you and Thor are entitled to your opinions.

Of course we are entitled to our respective opinions. Kind of you to say so.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Given the number of threads on the boards discussing sleep paralysis, the community can make its own minds up.

It certainly can. Thank god every time we each add a post, this shoots back up to the top and maybe more people will read it.

Originally Posted by Shift

I never said that I agreed to that, and nor do I. Lucid dreamers blur the lines between sleep and wakefullness. I think it's absolutely possible that we can train ourselves to remain conscious enough to experience the onset of paralysis.

But that's exactly the case that THOR is making. That WILDing with SP (or whatever he wants to call it) is a complete myth. Thats what Robot Butler, Myself and a few others are strongly objecting to. You would seem to be agreeing with us. So why are we arguing?!



BTW I'm not a Scientist, I'm an Engineer. Like I said, my knowledge and understanding is based primarily on the dream view tutorials and Laberge's book. And my own experiences.

Originally Posted by Shift

Of course we are entitled to our respective opinions. Kind of you to say so.

Not kind. Simply being polite. A little of the social lubrication which oils the wheels of heated debate.

Originally Posted by moonshine

But that's exactly the case that THOR is making. That WILDing with SP (or whatever he wants to call it) is a complete myth. Thats what Robot Butler, Myself and a few others are strongly objecting to. You would seem to be agreeing with us. So why are we arguing?!

Excellent question, you're the one who keeps misinterpreting my posts and seemingly trying to form Shift-Thor and Moonshine-RB alliances

Originally Posted by moonshine

BTW I'm not a Scientist, I'm an Engineer. Like I said, my knowledge and understanding is based primarily on the dream view tutorials and Laberge's book. And my own experiences.

Ah, k. That does explain quite a bit then. Personal experience means nil when you aren't measuring your muscles, your sleep patterns, and when you have a personal invested benefit as you do. LaBerge's book is "the bible" but it's written for the laymen and open to false interpretation by the laymen. This thread is an excellent lit review on SP and I think should definitely be read over the things relating to SP in EWOLD. And just so you know... DV has it's flaws. In fact it has quite a few, and I for one think strongly dislike the official SP tutorial. It ignores a lot of the science of REM atonia and sleep paralysis, misuses terms left and right, and makes a lot of broad statements as fact without any evidence. If that is what you are basing your knowledge off of, reread Thor's intro to this thread carefully and analytically. That's all I can suggest you do.

Ah, lovely, these heated arguments are worse than in R/S.

Great job on the tutorial, Thor. It's absolutely wonderful.

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

Ah, lovely, these heated arguments are worse than in R/S.

Ditto.

There are things I could say about this thread, but I won't, because people are sensitive.

Originally Posted by Shift

Excellent question, you're the one who keeps misinterpreting my posts and seemingly trying to form Shift-Thor and Moonshine-RB alliances

Well to be fair Shift that is how it seems to be coming across. You defend Thor then you directly contradict his core assertions. The same core assertions which RB and myself are disagreeing with.

Can you therefore please clarify the points you're looking to make.

Originally Posted by Shift

Ah, k. That does explain quite a bit then.

Ah well. Engineers are well know for their dizzy kooky ways and lack of logical analysis

Originally Posted by Shift

Personal experience means nil when you aren't measuring your muscles, your sleep patterns, and when you have a personal invested benefit as you do. LaBerge's book is "the bible" but it's written for the laymen and open to false interpretation by the laymen. This thread is an excellent lit review on SP and I think should definitely be read over the things relating to SP in EWOLD. And just so you know... DV has it's flaws. In fact it has quite a few, and I for one think strongly dislike the official SP tutorial. It ignores a lot of the science of REM atonia and sleep paralysis, misuses terms left and right, and makes a lot of broad statements as fact without any evidence. If that is what you are basing your knowledge off of, reread Thor's intro to this thread carefully and analytically. That's all I can suggest you do.

Yet my personal experience, the experience of other contributors, and the experience listed in EWOLD all do seem to correlate to a useful whole.

I doubt there are many who would like to take a psychology degree to be able to lucid dream. Nor do they need to.

Thor may well have completed a good search of scientific literature on Sleep Paralysis. But in my view his conclusion that inducing SP to WILD is a myth is fundamentally flawed.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Have you? Has thor? I admit his his cut and paste skills are strong.

For what it's worth I have a PhD.

But theres not much Scientific about his "proving a positive" claim, or his simple dismissal of significant anecdotal evidence.

The thing about "proving a positive claim" is so elementary it's probably included in almost any "Philosophy of Science 101" course. Actually, it's a common logic fallacy (Fallacy: Burden of Proof ).

Originally Posted by Thor

For what it's worth I have a PhD.

Not a PhD in Lucid Dreaming though, right?

Originally Posted by Thor

The thing about "proving a positive claim" is so elementary it's probably included in almost any "Philosophy of Science 101" course. Actually, it's a common logic fallacy (Fallacy: Burden of Proof ).

Maybe. Maybe not. A google search doesn't uncover much...as I guess you've already found.


There is significant evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that deliberately inducing SP to WILD works. You are therefore working working against the majority consensus of your DV peers. In this case I'd say the burden of proof was on you. Simply dismissing that evidence does not prove your case.
In that context, invoking "proving a positive" as a defence, remains a smokescreen.

Originally Posted by Thor

For what it's worth I have a PhD.

Regardless as to what PhD you may hold, there will inevitably be others of who are more knowledgeable or more sophisticated to yourself. Even if someone may know more of a given subject, any individual can still hold a key commitment towards that area of advancement in humanity.