Thread: Stop Drop and Roll. Why Lucidology and Nicholas Newport are creating misinformation.

Thanks SE. Interesting stuff.

I just did a bit of a web search on Triggers for REM Atonia, Sleep Mechanisms etc to see if there was anything out there.

Can't say I found it.

I have to say, theres every chance that REM Atonia can simple be triggered by the chance in brain waves as we relax into a more meditative state.

Another thing. The body test thing would surely work 1st thing at night as equally as it might during prime REM time. As we all know though it doesn't.

Hmmmmmmmmm. I have to say, I'm stepping back from my previous position on this, cos really, something so fundemental should be reported in the scientific community.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Thanks SE. Interesting stuff.

I just did a bit of a web search on Triggers for REM Atonia, Sleep Mechanisms etc to see if there was anything out there.

Can't say I found it.

I have to say, theres every chance that REM Atonia can simple be triggered by the chance in brain waves as we relax into a more meditative state.

Another thing. The body test thing would surely work 1st thing at night as equally as it might during prime REM time. As we all know though it doesn't.

Hmmmmmmmmm. I have to say, I'm stepping back from my previous position on this, cos really, something so fundemental should be reported in the scientific community.

An interesting study to look into was conducted my Michel Jouvet in 1965.
Jouvet using a small heated wire, destroyed a small portion of the Pons region of the brain in Cats (the Pons is situated on the brainstem, the bottom of the brain that links the brain to the spinal cord. It's apparently responsible for processes such as respiration, the heart and liver control.

To quote wikipedia: The pons relays sensory information between the cerebellum and cerebrum, aids in relaying other messages in the brain, controls arousal, and regulates respiration (see respiratory centres). In some theories, the pons has a role in dreaming.)


Anyhow,
By destroying a portion of the Pons in Cats Jouvet noted that during REM, the cats were no longer subject to paralysis, and instead acted out their dreams. Jumping on dream mice etc. etc.

What's interesting about this study, in relation to this discussion, is that it is clear that SP is not a bodily response to an inactive brain (as Newport states). In fact, it is seemingly a process in which the Pons is a vital element.
Perhaps this is triggered by an increase in certain hormones.

Another important factor in this discussion, is that sleep paralysis is a REM based phenomena. In NREM sleep, the body is not restricted (hence why sleepwalking, talking etc. occur in NREM).
This point contradicts Newport even more, as we all know that NREM sleep the brain/mind is at its least active of any state. Whilst in REM sleep the brain is technically more active than when awake.

If Newports theory that the body were to send test signals to the brain discover if it were awake or not, and if upon discovering it were asleep, would then enter SP, THEN, how can he account for zero SP in NREM? when the brain is least likely to respond or show any activity?

Sleep Paralysis is clearly a defensive mechanism, to avoid us acting out our dreams. I would probably take a guess that the Pons activates sleep paralysis when a certain level of a certain type of brain activity is reached.
Rather than it being a response to low brain activity, i would hazard a guess that it is a response to increased brain activity, the kind of activity that is unque to REM sleep.

SP is not a function of the body in response to an inactive mind, but it is a built in process of the brain, a kind of firewall that blocks signals from reaching the body.

It is stuff like this that makes me think that Newport is basing his theories not on established knowledge, but on what "sounds like it might be true".
And for me, I'd far prefer my knowledge and understanding to be based on facts than what someone "thinks might be true, decides they are an expert on, and then makes a bunch of infomercial videos to make some cash".

Anyway, check out the study if you can find it, it's fascinating.

And to get back on topic, i'll just repost where I left off...

An interesting study to look into was conducted my Michel Jouvet in 1965.
Jouvet using a small heated wire, destroyed a small portion of the Pons region of the brain in Cats (the Pons is situated on the brainstem, the bottom of the brain that links the brain to the spinal cord. It's apparently responsible for processes such as respiration, the heart and liver control.

To quote wikipedia: The pons relays sensory information between the cerebellum and cerebrum, aids in relaying other messages in the brain, controls arousal, and regulates respiration (see respiratory centres). In some theories, the pons has a role in dreaming.)


Anyhow,
By destroying a portion of the Pons in Cats Jouvet noted that during REM, the cats were no longer subject to paralysis, and instead acted out their dreams. Jumping on dream mice etc. etc.

What's interesting about this study, in relation to this discussion, is that it is clear that SP is not a bodily response to an inactive brain (as Newport states). In fact, it is seemingly a process in which the Pons is a vital element.
Perhaps this is triggered by an increase in certain hormones.

Another important factor in this discussion, is that sleep paralysis is a REM based phenomena. In NREM sleep, the body is not restricted (hence why sleepwalking, talking etc. occur in NREM).
This point contradicts Newport even more, as we all know that NREM sleep the brain/mind is at its least active of any state. Whilst in REM sleep the brain is technically more active than when awake.

If Newports theory that the body were to send test signals to the brain discover if it were awake or not, and if upon discovering it were asleep, would then enter SP, THEN, how can he account for zero SP in NREM? when the brain is least likely to respond or show any activity?

Sleep Paralysis is clearly a defensive mechanism, to avoid us acting out our dreams. I would probably take a guess that the Pons activates sleep paralysis when a certain level of a certain type of brain activity is reached.
Rather than it being a response to low brain activity, i would hazard a guess that it is a response to increased brain activity, the kind of activity that is unque to REM sleep.

SP is not a function of the body in response to an inactive mind, but it is a built in process of the brain, a kind of firewall that blocks signals from reaching the body.

It is stuff like this that makes me think that Newport is basing his theories not on established knowledge, but on what "sounds like it might be true".
And for me, I'd far prefer my knowledge and understanding to be based on facts than what someone "thinks might be true, decides they are an expert on, and then makes a bunch of infomercial videos to make some cash".

Anyway, check out the study if you can find it, it's fascinating.

AS AN ATTEMPT TO DEFEND JEFF'S TECH, NOT NEWPORT

The thing that is really throwing this argument off are the words we are using. They are really mis-leading. OBVIOUSLY the body cannot send mental signals of it's own, and obviously it takes it's orders from he brain as to when it falls asleep.

But the "sleep check" signal exists. What is it exactly? I heard a really great theory from billybob once, it is a last-resort check when you are lazing around/lying in wait to tell if you wish to remain conscious or fall asleep. The premise of this dates back to our hunter/gatherer stages and further where humans would have to lie in wait for extended periods of time in order to get food. The simple explanation is those who fell asleep, didn't get food and died while those who developed mental functions to tell if they should remain awake or fall asleep, lived on. Natural selection.

Now let me tottaly tear apart the phrase "Your body sends a signal to the mind to see if it has fallen asleep, so it can fall asleep."

Lets start defining words in here. First, "sleep" in terms of the body is defined most readily by things such as slowed breathing, decreased hartrate, and just general shut down of bodily function.

"Sleep" in terms of the mind, is what we are checking for. This is totally mis-leading. What this urge is checking for is REM-atonia, in other words, the inability for the body to move.

As for what we define "the mind" and "the body" as, these are evidently different regions of your brain, which indeed ARE independant. They are connected only by a linking chain of neurons. How to they communicate? they send a electric pulse to one another.

So, re-writing this phrase, we get "Under conditions that resemble rest, one section of the brain (probably the medula) sends a signal to another section of the brain (probably in your frontal lobe somewhere) to check if the cause is REM atonia. If it is, your bodily functions will begin to slow allowing to to enter a more restful state."

This is why you should NEVER use fucking new-age shit terminology.

PS: Don't quote me on the brain areas. I have no real evidence for it. It might actually be the parietal lobe that sends a pulse to the medula, (or parietal lobe send pulse to medula, who then sends a pulse to somewhere else)

Originally Posted by arby

AS AN ATTEMPT TO DEFEND JEFF'S TECH, NOT NEWPORT

The thing that is really throwing this argument off are the words we are using. They are really mis-leading. OBVIOUSLY the body cannot send mental signals of it's own, and obviously it takes it's orders from he brain as to when it falls asleep.

I've not read Jeffs thread on this, so can't comment. I'd rather the thread stay on topic tho, as Jeffs method is a seperate issue, even if they are releated (seems like newport has ripped Jeff off and then done him the disservice to turn it into a load of nonsense.)

But read my last two posts for my main issues on the (nonsense)theory of Newports.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

I've not read Jeffs thread on this, so can't comment. I'd rather the thread stay on topic tho, as Jeffs method is a seperate issue

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Ha. Way to be informed.

They are the SAME technique.

You do know that in this thread you are attacking what might be the largest and most successful thread on this forum?

But read my last two posts for my main issues on the (nonsense)theory of Newports....

How does this disprove that there is validity to this technique? To me, this is evidence of validity. The pons is probably one of the brain areas I described above.

Originally Posted by arby

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Ha. Way to be informed.

They are the SAME technique.

You do know that in this thread you are attacking what might be the largest and most successful thread on this forum?


How does this disprove that there is validity to this technique? To me, this is evidence of validity. The pons is probably one of the brain areas I described above.

In response to that last sentence: it does not disprove the validity of the technique, I agree that staying still can help induce a WILD. The point, if you were to read the thread, is to disprove the vailidity of the theory, which dosn't stand up to even the simplest scrutiny and basic principles of biology, sleep and psychology.

A Technique and the theory for why a technique works are two very different things. However the theory behind a technique is the principle used when attempting to understand why something works. If your Whys are based on misinformation, then you are doing yourself a disservice and will limit your wider understanding. It is better to simply state "this works but im not sure why", than to say "this works because *insert a theory that has no foundations*.

Well if they are the same theories, and Jeff words it in the same way Newport words it. Then I have the same issues with Jeffs theory too.

And why should I be informing myself on Jeffs method?
Just because he's come up with the same thing as Newport, this thread is not about that method, it is about misinformation in lucid dreaming being spread by Newport, this one method being an example.

The topic started to focus on one of Newports many silly theories, and so that was discussed.

Also largest and most successful threads, is irrelevant to me.
Christianity is one of the largest most successful religions on the planet... dosn't mean i have to believe it. Truth is more important to me than popularity.
McDonalds is also really popular, dosn't mean i want to eat that garbage.

Anyway, you are diverting this thread away from it's topic.
If I wanted to discuss Jeffs method, I'd be in his thread.

Anyway, My issue is not just with this single method of Newports, it is with his entire series and what he is doing to lucid dreaming.

However I still hold firm that lack of sleep paralysis in NREM, is pretty strong evidence against the theory.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

It's the old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and the concept that a lie told with a pinch of truth, is far more convincing.


(god, even the sticking "ology" at the end of the word lucid, says enough about his approach to me)

These were my thoughts too.

Originally Posted by arby

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Ha. Way to be informed.

They are the SAME technique.

You do know that in this thread you are attacking what might be the largest and most successful thread on this forum?

A thread being large doesn't necessarily mean the content is scientifically correct even if everyone posting in it is enthusiastically agreeing with each other.

I haven't read Jeff's thread either. I remember coming across it not long after I joined DV but as soon as I came across the line

Originally Posted by Jeff777

But this is just a ruse! The body is not really uncomfortable, it's
just testing to see if it can get a response from the mind. If you
ignore this signal, your body waits a few seconds and says "Hmm, the
mind must have gone to sleep. Time for me to do the same."

I dismissed it as rubbish. I'm really sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone but it is just huey to try to claim the body has some sort of personal agenda like that. Like S/E has asked a thousand times: which part of the body "decides" to do this testing? The appendix? The femur? The iliac artery?

It's about as ridiculous as claiming a car tests to see if it has a driver.

So yeah, I disagree with Jeff's thread as well. I don't know by what criterion you judge it to be the "most successful thread on this forum"? but jeez if it is then that's a worry.

Just as a note, I don't like the way Newport and Jeff word things, that was half the point of my first post.

This is why you should NEVER use fucking new-age shit terminology.

I am only defending the method, which works. Even if we don't know why. I measure success not only by the length, but by the sheer volume of people in that thread that report good experiences and seem to be able to relate.

Unfortunately, this method of teaching is the only way people pay attention, and in cases such as this it works well! You cannot deny that this works well, even though he doesn't give proper science.

Giving the theory behind a technique is an assured way to make sure nobody ever uses it. I've seen this happen time and time again. The second you start taking about the parasympathetic nervous system and medulla, which essentially represent "the body" in this simple example, people click the back button.

PS: SP doesn't occur during REM. Sleep paralysis refers DISTINCTLY to paralysis when you are conscious.

I dismissed it as rubbish. I'm really sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone but it is just huey to try to claim the body has some sort of personal agenda like that. Like S/E has asked a thousand times: which part of the body "decides" to do this testing? The appendix? The femur? The iliac artery?

I'm always thrilled when there is evidence that people have actually bothered read my posts -_-

Originally Posted by arby

Just as a note, I don't like the way Newport and Jeff word things, that was half the point of my first post.



I am only defending the method, which works. Even if we don't know why. I measure success not only by the length, but by the sheer volume of people in that thread that report good experiences and seem to be able to relate.

Okay, yeah maybe I will read it now that you've said that about the new-age terminology. Especially if you reckon lots of people have reported success in the thread. Although like I said it was more the concept of "tricking the body" that put me off. Will give it another look though.

Thanks

Originally Posted by arby

Just as a note, I don't like the way Newport and Jeff word things, that was half the point of my first post.



I am only defending the method, which works. Even if we don't know why. I measure success not only by the length, but by the sheer volume of people in that thread that report good experiences and seem to be able to relate.

Unfortunately, this method of teaching is the only way people pay attention, and in cases such as this it works well! You cannot deny that this works well, even though he doesn't give proper science.

Giving the theory behind a technique is an assured way to make sure nobody ever uses it. I've seen this happen time and time again. The second you start taking about the parasympathetic nervous system and medulla, which essentially represent "the body" in this simple example, people click the back button.

PS: SP doesn't occur during REM. Sleep paralysis refers DISTINCTLY to paralysis when you are conscious.



I'm always thrilled when there is evidence that people have actually bothered read my posts -_-

I think it's fair to call paralysis whilst you are asleep"sleep paraysis"

You're kind of right if you want to get finikity about it , I was using the term sleep paralysis because it is more readily understood than REM Atonia for most people.
However Sleep Paralysis will only occur as a result of REM atonia, because its exactly the same process occuring.

Depends if you are refering to sleep paralysis as a sleep disorder, or sleeping paralysis as a function of REM.


ps. I think DreamQueen read your post, but unfortunatly, neither Newport nor Jeff makes the distinctions you make. They claim, in a seemingly straightforward way, that the "body" tests the "mind", which is clearly hokum.
Just because you choose to interpret what they say in a more thoughtful manner, does not excuse either of their lack of clarity on the subject. It's a misleading choice of word. Of which I would agree with you that "new age" speak is dangerous territory.


Anyway, enough of semantics.
The points are clear...
The theory does not stand up even if people do have success with the techniques. That is a dangerous combination for creating unfounded belief systems. It's much wiser and more humble to simply say "this technique works for me but im not sure why" than "this technique works... and here is my half baked explanation why"

Originally Posted by arby

I'm always thrilled when there is evidence that people have actually bothered read my posts -_-

I'm a bit confused because I did read your post as evidenced by the fact that I quoted it. Is this comment sarcastic or do you genuinely mean it?

Originally Posted by arby

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Ha. Way to be informed.

They are the SAME technique.

You do know that in this thread you are attacking what might be the largest and most successful thread on this forum?


How does this disprove that there is validity to this technique? To me, this is evidence of validity. The pons is probably one of the brain areas I described above.

Well they would be. Jeff pretty much reitterated the Saltcube method.

Now the "caveman trying to rest" explanation almost seems logical.
But theres just no proof. And there are alternative explanations.

There is every chance that the technique works - I mean its a WILD with bells on isn't it - but maybe not for the reasons advertised.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Well they would be. Jeff pretty much reitterated the Saltcube method.

Now the "caveman trying to rest" explanation almost seems logical.
But theres just no proof. And there are alternative explanations.

There is every chance that the technique works - I mean its a WILD with bells on isn't it - but maybe not for the reasons advertised.

Good points moonshine.
The caveman trying to rest explanation, i agree seems logical, but I also think it's kind of comic book logic, if you know what i mean.
It's over simplifying what would be an incredibly complicated process. It's kind of tabloid science, sounds good, but dosn't stand up to a bit of thought. First thought that popped into my mind was night watchmen and the troubles they have staying awake on the job. Also personal experience of long distance journeys, where i've been trying to stay awake waiting for my stop, but had real difficulty. Where was the body test in those scenarios? If anything, I'd say the simplest "bodily test" if there were such a thing, would be "check to see if eyelid nerves are active or inactive". I'm sure most people would agree that generally when trying to stay awake in boring situations, it's the closing of your eyelids that is always the killer... once you let them shut, it snowballs and you're out like a light.


As for other peoples points...

I have little doubt that aspects of the technique itself may work for some people, some of the time. Although i'd probably put a great deal of money on the theory as to why it works being completely wrong.

I am sure that minimising movment where possible, when trying to induce a WILD is a helpful tactic. I do however think that staying imobile even when in extreme discomfort is futile and self defeating.

I would suggest a couple of experiments to challenge this theory.
The first is incredibly simple... film yourself falling asleep.
I'd be willing to bet that you'd be suprised how often your body moves and adjusts its position whilst transitioning through the early sleep stages.
In fact, if you don't have problems falling asleep with background sound, play an audio book during the falling asleep process. Note when you wake up, the last part of the story you were aware of being read. This will give you a reference point, when watching the film to where your conscious mind fell asleep (for those of us who cant afford sleep Lab Equipment!)... is there much movement leading up to, or following this point?
If so... then it's evidence against this theory.
I predict, bodily movment would occur prior and after sleep onset.

Second, and even simpler experiment....
Try laying still for long periods of time with your EYES OPEN.
Does sleep paralysis kick in this way?
Even if you've ignored the urges to move and itch?

Also note, are the urges to move and itch as pronounced as when you limit your sensory input by closing your eyes? If not, why do you think that is?
Could the hightened urge to move and itch, rather than be a bodily test, be an example of increased bodily awareness when the visual sensory input is removed from the equation?

Could also, suggestion and expection play a role in your experience?


I myself have no belief or expectation that I have to stay still whilst inducing a WILD. I try to minimise movment, because it is simply more restful to minimise movment... it's also more restful to move when uncomfortable.
Fortunatly for me, because im not making a "big deal" about staying still, these "suddent intense urges to move" never happen... because my mind is not primed to expect them, so the suggestion or worry never becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Also, when I move, i don't see it as a huge faliure, because I don't buy into the theory... so instead, i just move if i need to get comfy, and drift off into sleep, and dreams, without a worry.

This is the problem with techniques that have false theories. They create needless worrys, expectations and suggestions. Many of which can completely screw with you.

It's far better to think this way:
If you want to fall asleep and enter a WILD, consider what is most restful and go with that.

Worrying, obsessing and being uncomfortable are NOT restful activitys.

I'm sure everyone has experienced that sensation, when drifting off to sleep where the mind has a wash of the feeling "ahhh, who cares... whatever... just sleeeeep" moments before you drift off, that's what you need to aim for. Any distraction, worry or focus will contradict that basic premise of falling asleep, which is: letting go.

For me, having had a lot of WILDs, the process is basically:
Letting go whilst still maintaining a witnessing consciousness, just the bare minimum, so that when the dream starts to form, that minimum awareness is able to trigger a fuller awareness. It's a similar process the mind uses when trying to remember to do something in the future (well i suppose it's exactly the same actually), If for example i need to remember to post a letter, whilst heading into town to do various chores... i'm not constantly focused on posting the letter, instead a small area of my mind is active just enough so that when the correct environmental cues are in place, that it fully awakens from it's "silent waiting watchman" mode, and suddenly i remember what it is I have to do. It's the same with a WILD, I know full well that trying to retain a full waking awareness is going to be counterproductive to falling asleep, so instead my "silent waiting watchman" is given the task to cue the rest of my awareness into action when a dreamscene starts to form.

Of course, I've experienced WILDs where the transition is almost seemless, and a suprising amount of full awareness is active during the entire process of falling asleep. But these situations are much rarer, and often other factors like extreme physical tiredness or extreme REM rebound are in place. The most successful WILDs for me are almost always, a diminished witnessing awareness, a small trickle of continued consiousness, that acts like an anchor, or thread, with which full awarness can be restored when the dream forms. This way, the restful mindset required for sleep, can still take place, without the the conscious mind interfering too much. If you can diminish your consciousness to the bare minimum, just enough so that you'll notice falling into the dream, then the process of falling asleep is much faster and natural.

That's what works for me, but it takes practice, and really requires you to deveop prospective memory abilities.

But back on the main topic, in all my WILDs, i've never once had problems with "urges to move", because I've never considered getting comfortable to be a barrier to falling asleep. In fact, I've always considered it as pretty vital to falling asleep.
Be careful of what suggestions and expectations you build up in your mind, because, as we all know, the dreaming and sleepy mind is hugely effected by such things.
Which is exactly why I have problems with people who claim to be experts, throwing suggestions and expectations into the mind of people that would do better without them.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

For me, having had a lot of WILDs, the process is basically:
Letting go whilst still maintaining a witnessing consciousness, just the bare minimum, so that when the dream starts to form, that minimum awareness is able to trigger a fuller awareness. It's a similar process the mind uses when trying to remember to do something in the future (well i suppose it's exactly the same actually), If for example i need to remember to post a letter, whilst heading into town to do various chores... i'm not constantly focused on posting the letter, instead a small area of my mind is active just enough so that when the correct environmental cues are in place, that it fully awakens from it's "silent waiting watchman" mode, and suddenly i remember what it is I have to do. It's the same with a WILD, I know full well that trying to retain a full waking awareness is going to be counterproductive to falling asleep, so instead my "silent waiting watchman" is given the task to cue the rest of my awareness into action when a dreamscene starts to form.

Of course, I've experienced WILDs where the transition is almost seemless, and a suprising amount of full awareness is active during the entire process of falling asleep. But these situations are much rarer, and often other factors like extreme physical tiredness or extreme REM rebound are in place. The most successful WILDs for me are almost always, a diminished witnessing awareness, a small trickle of continued consiousness, that acts like an anchor, or thread, with which full awarness can be restored when the dream forms. This way, the restful mindset required for sleep, can still take place, without the the conscious mind interfering too much. If you can diminish your consciousness to the bare minimum, just enough so that you'll notice falling into the dream, then the process of falling asleep is much faster and natural.

That's what works for me, but it takes practice, and really requires you to deveop prospective memory abilities.

This is such a good description of WILDing. This is exactly how it is for me too