Thread: What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis

Originally Posted by Thor

That's why I think people should only use the term sleep paralysis in the sense of as a disorder.

Well good luck with that!

Originally Posted by moonshine

Well good luck with that!

Yes, with people like you misinforming newbies as to what Sleep Paralysis is, we'll never be able to inform those who are being initiated into lucid dreaming and we'll never be able to make any progress.

Originally Posted by Shift

Yes, with people like you misinforming newbies as to what Sleep Paralysis is, we'll never be able to inform those who are being initiated into lucid dreaming and we'll never be able to make any progress.

People like me! Given that my knowledge and understanding is based primarily on the dream view tutorials and Laberge's book, seems to me that you're attempting to patronise a pretty significant proportion of the forums membership.

I'd also point out that a lot of people have managed to make significant progress without Thors recent "guidance".

Originally Posted by moonshine

People like me! Given that my knowledge and understanding is based primarily on the dream view tutorials and Laberge's book, seems to me that you're attempting to patronise a pretty significant proportion of the forums membership.

I'd also point out that a lot of people have managed to make significant progress without Thors recent "guidance".

QFT..there used to be a point on these forums where every small semantic discussion wasn't given pages and pages of argument and "scientific" proofs, when in fact there was originally a general consensus of the term as established by tutorials, members' experiences, ect. This consensus served for all intensive purposes, and, in my mind HELPED newbies enter into a forum where they were confronted not with a scientific lecture on the difference between almost full muscle tone loss and full muscle tone loss, and how what they've called sleep paralysis is actually low muscle tone, but instead with a simple term that they could easily relate to their experiences.

Patronize everyone? The only reason I feel superior in the slightest is because I've read all the awesome information that Thor has provided and I am willing to admit my mistakes. Personally, I feel that recognizing one has made a mistake and seeking to overcome it is an admirable thing to do, rather than spreading false information all over the damn place.

They are misusing a medical term. It's like calling alcoholism narcolepsy. I'm a dream guide. It's my responsibility on this site, and then my responsibility as a scientist and as an intelligent human being, to try to teach people when they are doing something completely wrong.

Yes, using sleep paralysis to mean any and all hypnagogia was wrong. Maybe, if we all realize this and try to change our behavior and teach the newbies, we'll overcome it. 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. 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.

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

You are right on at least one point shift, it is stupid to have this semantic discussion. I'm finished with it, and, as a budding scientist (biology major), I will agree to disagree with you guys. However, even though I'm leaving this discussion I'm not going to alter what I say. I, and several others on these forums, believe that Sleep Paralysis can be rightly used to describe the NREM atonia (EXTREMELY low muscle tone), REM atonia, and the sleep disorder. If you look closely, I've never made a post advocating getting to SP in order to LD, though I know that some scientists believe that there is overlap between REM and Wakefulness which includes

"A. Cataplexy, hypnagogic hallucinations, sleep paralysis
B. REM sleep behavior disorder
C. Lucid dreaming (out of body experiences)
D. Delerium (hallucinations- drug induced, peduncular"

From Overlapping states of being Handbook of Behavioral State Control with reference to Mahowald, M.W and Schenck, C.H. Neurology, 42, 44-52. 1992

as well as there being evidence (my previously cited material) to having very low muscle tone, if not all out atonia (though thor stated they didn't have the right reflex test there is not proof that the subjects were not atonic)

With that, I part ways for this thread, and others that use semantic discussion and science that is still being investigated to put down others' rightly justified opinions on sleep paralysis.

Thanks for the discussion,

Mortalis

Originally Posted by Shift

They are misusing a medical term. It's like calling alcoholism narcolepsy. I'm a dream guide. It's my responsibility on this site, and then my responsibility as a scientist and as an intelligent human being, to try to teach people when they are doing something completely wrong.

Yes, using sleep paralysis to mean any and all hypnagogia was wrong. Maybe, if we all realize this and try to change our behavior and teach the newbies, we'll overcome it.

Lets not blow this out of proportion. Nobody (except maybe for a few newbs) is using the term 'sleep paralysis' inappropriately. Especially not to the point of it being considered misinformation.

When I see somebody post a thread like "OMFG!!! Evil Spirits paralyzed me and sucked my electric body energy last night!!!", I am not going to try and explain the differences between total atonia and extremely low muscle tone, or REM vs. non-REM dreams. I am going to tell them to read about Sleep Paralysis, and direct them to a place where their questions can be easily answered.

I also think that it is worthwhile to warn people ahead of time that they may experience crazy hallucinations, body distortions, and paralysis when they WILD. Obviously, this is a common enough experience during WILDs that it would be unfair to just tell them to "Relax, and you will slip into a dream." Obviously no two WILDs are alike, but some can be very intense and frightening. Lets be sure to tell people that this is normal, safe, and common, and assure them that their body is not going to explode like Ted Sprague.

Let me stress again that you can learn to bring about sleep paralysis through WILD meditations. I don't know how anyone is even arguing this. You do not force the physiological response to occur at an impossible time. You only maintain your awareness long enough to experience it, where normally you would not. And, of course, this can be an extremely useful tool for learning to lucid dream at will.

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 Robot_Butler

Let me stress again that you can learn to bring about sleep paralysis through WILD meditations. I don't know how anyone is even arguing this. You do not force the physiological response to occur at an impossible time. You only maintain your awareness long enough to experience it, where normally you would not. And, of course, this can be an extremely useful tool for learning to lucid dream at will.

Which truly is the crux of this debate. Thor does not at all agree with the above. And neither, apparently, does Shift.

Yet there is significant common experience which suggests that WILD is indeed possible, as well as Scientific research completed by Laberge (in proper laboratories and everything) which supports the same.

Chapter 4 of ETWOLD (pages 94 to 116) entitled "Falling Asleep Consciously" kinda gives the game away.

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.

Well all science is based on peer review, so with reference to THORS original thesis, here we go....

Originally Posted by Thor

[SIZE="5"]
One interpretation of the term sleep paralysis is as a natural phenomenon that is more properly called REM atonia.

A quick google of Sleep Paralysis and REM atonia indicates that Sleep Paralysis is, very specifically, the term used to describe REM atonia outside of REM Sleep, i.e. when the individual is awake. Which would indicate that this is absolutely the correct term to use with reference to WILD techniques.

Originally Posted by Thor

[SIZE="5"]
In the scientific and medical communities sleep paralysis usually refers to a sleep disorder.

A sleep disorder involving REM atonia outside of REM Sleep i.e. whilst the individual is awake. This may be a bad or scary experience for some, but it is a welcome experience for lucid dreamers.

Originally Posted by Thor

[SIZE="5"]
Sleep paralysis affects a minority of the population, and those who are affected experience it infrequently

In the context above we're talking about involuntary sleep paralysis. In the lucid dreamer community it would be logical to expect the proportion and frequency to be higher, as lucid dreamers use techniques designed to deliberately induce sleep paralysis.

Originally Posted by Thor

[SIZE="5"]
There is not much justification for the use of the term "sleep paralysis" in the sense "hypnagogic hallucinations".

Which no one has ever disputed.

Originally Posted by Thor

[SIZE="5"]
Sense 4: Sleep Paralysis as an Umbrella Term
This interpretation includes a hodgepodge of any or all of the preceding interpretations.

A very rare occurence and one which is readily corrected by members of the dream view community.

Originally Posted by Thor

[SIZE="5"]
So wanting sleep paralysis as REM atonia is pointless.

Unless of course you wish to use it as a gateway to lucid dreaming.

Originally Posted by Thor

[SIZE="5"]
People who suffer from sleep paralysis generally do not want it because it's usually very frightening.

True. But, as we know, lucid dreamers feel differently.

Originally Posted by Thor

[SIZE="5"]
Those who don't have this disorder will likely not get it by wishing for it. You won't be able to "will" yourself into changing your sleep physiology so that you get REM atonia outside of REM sleep. At least I'm not aware of any kind of research that could confirm such an effect.

Patently False. Laberge's research did just that.
A significant amount of anecdotal evidence based on common personal experiences on this very forum corroborates Laberge's research and conclusions.

Originally Posted by Thor

[SIZE="5"]
Many LDers seem to conflate hypnagogic hallucinations and REM atonia. Hypnagogic hallucinations belong exclusively to sleep stage 1 (or in rare cases wakefulness)[7]. And REM atonia belongs exclusively to the REM stage.[14] Since sleep stages 1 and REM are distinct, these two phenomena do not normally occur simultaneously, except in the case of sleep paralysis as a disorder.

Or for example in the case where sleep paralysis is deliberately induced by a WILD attempt.

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.

Great post, although I haven't read it all, it appears to be very imformative and literate. Also, there are various negatives that may occur throughout ones life that can increase the odds of sleeping paralysis, not that any of them are wishful enough; for any of them to be valuable enough to be induced in order to achieve sleeping paralysis and then a lucid dream, depression can influence it effectively. Sleeping paralysis still occurs a lot to me, not most recently, but throughout this year, it has occurred a lot of times in contrast to previous years; sleeping paralysis had started back in February 2006 for myself. My initial speculation over the experience was to be the fact that it was something of which was spiritual, perhaps a ghost hauting me or something as such. However, my perception changed when I understood more of sleep psychology. Also, I've noticed for one thing to occur whilst in a sleeping paralysis, or mostly upon, is the lack of memory - more recently, I would find it difficult to remember the sleep paralysis, as well as the lack of lucidity. Although I'd know it wasn't real, I still wouldn't be able to eliminate any auditory, sensory or visual hallucinations.

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.

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/re...466.2001v1.pdf

An interesting paper.

Clearly indicates that Muscle Atonia in NREM is the same as Muscle Atonia in REM.
In effect the physiological paralysis frequently refered to as REM atonia can occour outside of REM sleep.

The world is an amazing place to discover and talk with others about your experiences. Why read about something and get a PHD when the experience is already on your doorstep?

Please stop lecturing others and let them make up there own mind on things, If people stopped worrying about grades and test scores the world would be a better place.

Stop caring about what you think its right and start looking at whats most interesting.