Thread: What Sleep Paralysis Is, and Why You Don't 'Need' It to WILD

I was just thinking about this while working out at the gym. Lets try for a fresh start, so this doesn't turn into a massive 3-way brawl (aka- thread get closed)

First off, Thor, I would like to apologize for calling you a blowhard. That is too strong a term, insulting, and was a little knee-jerk. I may not agree with your argument style, but that does not give me the right to insult you.

I know you're very familiar with this subject, and I'm curious if you have a good theory that can unify what you have researched with what people on this site experience regarding sleep paralysis during WILD. We seem to be going in circles with you telling us what is not possible. Now, what is possible?

I would also like your thoughts on this thread, which is pretty much the same thing I've been saying all along. I know it is not proof of anything, but maybe Kromoh explains it better than I do.
http://dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=77237

I am just not comfortable with dismissing this all as hallucination, or "dreaming of being in sleep paralysis." There has to be a good explanation that brings it all together.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

I was only trying to point out that you may need to reexamine your motives. I was trying to politely say you should brush the chip off your shoulder, and admit when you are wrong. Arguing something just to prove you are right is not science. That is ego. It does not make you a scientist, just a blowhard.

I have no idea why you're saying all this to me instead of moonshine. He's the one with an ego so big that he has to be right. He is the one who thinks scientific discussions are about "victory".

The scientific method is not about proving a point.

That's almost correct. In science we don't actually "prove" stuff. Proof is for law and mathematics. However, you do need to argue for your point. You need to argue according to a set of rules, and your facts need to satisfy certain quality standards. The problem with you and moonshine is that you are putting on a scientific act without understanding these rules and quality standards. For example, moonshine didn't even understand something as elementary as the principle of burden of proof.

Any decent scientist is happy to admit their hypothesis is wrong, because it means they have learned something new.

That is entirely correct, and believe it or not: I couldn't care less about being "right" about these things. As I wrote:

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.

As you can see, I'm explicitly saying that I'm holding open the possibility that these things could be shown to be wrong at some point. It's just that so far no one has come up with evidence of sufficiently high quality to the contrary. And those three points are not my hypotheses; they represent the baseline. Rather, it is you who have adopted the respective hypotheses to the contrary, so the burden of proof is on you.

You seem to be more concerned with your own ego than with any productive discussion.

To me a productive discussion must follow the rules of argumentation. And if you decide to drag science into it, from that point on you play according to the quality standards of science. None of this has anything to do with ego.

Originally Posted by Thor

I have no idea why you're saying all this to me instead of moonshine. He's the one with an ego so big that he has to be right. He is the one who thinks scientific discussions are about "victory".

"Wah wah wah. Moonshine started it!" Good grief.

Originally Posted by Thor

That's almost correct. In science we don't actually "prove" stuff. Proof is for law and mathematics. However, you do need to argue for your point. You need to argue according to a set of rules, and your facts need to satisfy certain quality standards. The problem with you and moonshine is that you are putting on a scientific act without understanding these rules and quality standards. For example, moonshine didn't even understand something as elementary as the principle of burden of proof.

That is entirely correct, and believe it or not: I couldn't care less about being "right" about these things. As I wrote:

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.

As you can see, I'm explicitly saying that I'm holding open the possibility that these things could be shown to be wrong at some point. It's just that so far no one has come up with evidence of sufficiently high quality to the contrary. And those three points are not my hypotheses; they represent the baseline. Rather, it is you who have adopted the respective hypotheses to the contrary, so the burden of proof is on you.

Lets not forget the sub-clauses in Thors rules of acceptable science.

Thor can simply reject the theories of Scientists because either:-
A) He doesn't like the way they've presented the information.
B) He doesn't like the conclusion.

Originally Posted by Thor

To me a productive discussion must follow the rules of argumentation. And if you decide to drag science into it, from that point on you play according to the quality standards of science. None of this has anything to do with ego.

Or course, of course. I'm sure it was very productive when you launched into a screed of posts labelling me a 'tard or a liar.

Really Thor, its all about the Ego. You know it, I know it, objective observers know it.

Anyway, if the toys are back in the pram, back to the Science.

Originally Posted by Thor

.
First, there are numerous signs that you do not understand language at a deeper, semantic level, only at a superficial, syntactic level. For example, you are unable to distinguish between different concepts that share the same name, like "atonia". Submental EMG and blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem are interrelated and partially correlated phenomena, but to you they are not just interrelated and correlated; they are the same thing. Also, in some cases you take the mere occurrence of a particular word in an article, like "atonia" or "electrophysiological", as support of your beliefs without the need to argue for them.

In case you missed it........

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

Discussion
For the first time, the present report systematically documents epochs of muscle atonia
in NREM sleep (MAN). Although their most frequent occurrence is in proximity to REM
sleep, they are present throughout a NREM sleep episode. This gives rise to a Ushaped
pattern. The present observations are in accordance with previous reports that
epochs with a low EMG level occur in the part of the NREM sleep that precedes and
follows REM sleep (4, 5, 12). These findings indicate that a REM sleep episode is not
sharply delimited but that it has antecedents during NREM sleep and that it vanishes
gradually in the succeeding NREM sleep episode. Also in animals it was observed that
transitions from NREM sleep to REM sleep are not always sharply delimited, but
premonitory signs appear prior to the state change. Benington and Heller (3) reported
that during a NREM sleep episode brief REM sleep episodes occurred with increasing
frequency, leading finally to a sustained REM sleep episode. In view of the U-shaped
distribution of MAN episodes it is unlikely that they are analogous events. However,
there is evidence from animal studies that typical electrophysiological changes occur
prior to the onset of REM sleep (e.g. (18)).

18. Trachsel, L., I. Tobler, and A. A. Borbély. Electroencephalogram analysis of nonrapid
eye movement sleep in rats. Am. J. Physiol. 255: R27-R37, 1988.

And again:
In view of the U-shaped distribution of MAN episodes it is unlikely that they are analogous events.
What do you think this means Thor.

Originally Posted by moonshine

What are you banging on about Thor? Of course I can. As of course can the author of the original work. My sincere apologies for quoting from a popular science book written by a PHD and a Fellow of medicine. What was I thinking.

Simply relying on someone with a PhD and Fellows of Medicine is not enough to say that they are right. Even a Dr. is wrong on many occasions. You are failing to support your own support.

If you want an complete list of references, buy the book

Deliberate avoidance of justifying your own support. This is another way of saying, "I do not know what I am supporting, so go please read it for me."

Oh rly? Well speaking of made up arguments, weren't you actually the one who brought up previous discussions.

Pointing the finger in return of an accusation does not defend yourself. This is an illogical fallacy that you are imposing by defending yourself via attacking the accuser. Ad hominems are soon to follow along with other invalid arguments.

Speaking of straw men, please show me where I've lied? You're right, it is a very low and disingenuous tactic. You should be ashamed!

Heres what you did - in fact - say previously :

Notice the attempt to save face by attacking the accuser again. This is failing to justify your own statements again. Please learn to support your statements and justifications without relying on attacking others.

The third possibility is that you're indulging a no small degree of selective dickish pedantry (colour me surprised). Kinda difficult to lie when the thread in question is a matter of record.

I am curious to investigate this.

[quote]

Originally Posted by moonshine

Yet again, says you.

But look.....
http://www.amazon.com/Counting-Sheep...0859417&sr=8-2

Dr Martin appears to have been able to publish an index of references at the back of the book without breaking the laws of space time and causing a chain reaction which destroys the universe.

Go figure

Also, I can reference a chain of books, by PhD writers, who will quote completely unreliable sources. This point proves nothing but the laziness to declare your own arguments.

To investigate this thread further, I will look into Thor's posts next.

Please understand that forum thread debates are easy to digress as they take place over days and that you guys may very likely be running in circles. Try to re-state your original arguments in a more declarative style to help reconcile.

~

Originally Posted by Thor

Unless we want to hopelessly confuse the discussion, let's first distinguish between REM atonia and sleep paralysis, the former being natural and the latter being a sleep disorder.

If you are in sleep paralysis, you cannot possibly know that you have it before you have tried to move and failed. If you don't report the symptom, you don't have the disorder. It would be analogous to saying "I had a horrible headache; I didn't feel any pain at all, but I just know I had it."

If you're in REM atonia the experience is maximally internal, so you feel and control your dream body instead of your real body, hence no experience of REM atonia.

They haven't really described it. They have described their interpretation of an experience in which they assume they know when they are in REM atonia, when it is in fact highly unlikely that they can know this. Most likely they were not in REM at all, hence they were able to move just fine.

I've seen many people here on DV say things like: "be careful not to move, or you'll break SP." What kind of paralysis "breaks" when you try to move? None; it's a contradiction.



When you fall asleep there is loss of muscle tone. Yet you are fully able to move even though your movements will be sluggish. People turn and toss in their sleep all through the night, except of course when they are in REM sleep.

Originally Posted by Thor

I think you are on to something here, Shift. This is probably close to the source of all the confusion.

There are two kinds of sleep paralysis (in the sense of a disorder):

• Common sleep paralysis (CSP). This is the most common kind of SP. It means that you are in the awake state, you find you can't move, and you typically get scared. It lasts for a short time, and it usually occurs when waking up and rarely when falling asleep.
• Hallucinatory sleep paralysis (HSP), also known as hypnagogic sleep paralysis. This is rare and seems to be geographically episodic. The main difference between this and CSP is that it is also accompanied by hallucinations and can last for several minutes.

So maybe what happened was that some people started interpreting their perfectly normal hypnagogic hallucinations as symptoms of HSP, even though they hadn't experienced any kind of paralysis.

Originally Posted by Thor

I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. What I'm arguing is that the notion that vivid dreams occur only in REM is false.



I'm sorry, Butler, but you're wrong on every point. When you set out to educate other people on science, the first thing to do is actually having a clue what you're talking about, so you don't make a fool of yourself. The defining qualities of science are not "discovery and truth seeking". Man discovered things millions of years before he knew science, and other practices, like religion, also endeavor to seek the truth. Although science is motivated by the search for truth, the defining quality of science is the gathering of knowledge, consisting of theories and facts, by employing the scientific method. An objective, absolute truth is not knowable, neither through science nor any other way. However, what sets science apart from non-science, is that it works; scientific theories have greater predictive power than any alternative.

Since it is painfully clear that you don't have even the most elementary knowledge about science, you are not competent to judge the quality of any scientific methodology. Contrary to what you say, argument and debate are essential to the scientific process. In particular, what you're calling "cherrypicking" is actually a scientific principle called falsification. Given an hypothesis like "vivid dreams only occur in REM sleep", I only need to point out counterexamples, and that hypothesis is falsified. Decades worth of research has produced plenty of these counterexamples, so the claim that vivid dreams occur only in REM sleep has been very thoroughly falsified by now.

The problem in this thread is consistent with all of your posts, Thor; you simply need to source yourself. Give us some citations of where you get this information from. I have grown used to doing this myself and it works effectively to quell any problematic areas.

Please realize that you are simply subject to the accusation that you are simply making up this information without support. While this may likely not be the case, forum readers cannot empirically tell the difference. Fix that.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Simply relying on someone with a PhD and Fellows of Medicine is not enough to say that they are right. Even a Dr. is wrong on many occasions. You are failing to support your own support.

A fair point, as Thor clearly demonstrates. That said, theres a lot to be said for experience and expertise in a specific field, which is why I'm inclined to accept the conclusions of the scientists as opposed to Thors simplistic argument that conclusions don't stand unless they are presented in a way which is acceptable to Thor.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Deliberate avoidance of justifying your own support. This is another way of saying, "I do not know what I am supporting, so go please read it for me."

Not really. I've deliberately avoiding retyping numerous pages of related scientific references, for what I would hope are obvious reasons.
In relation to the section which I quoted, I provided the Author and Title of the book. Clearly, Insofar as I can, I've provided the source.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Pointing the finger in return of an accusation does not defend yourself. This is an illogical fallacy that you are imposing by defending yourself via attacking the accuser.

Incorrect. It was a fairly simple accusation. Thor stated that I had brought up the previous discussion. In reality Thor did. In any event this is a very minor point. I'd suggest its a bit embarassing for either of us to make too much out of it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Ad hominems are soon to follow along with other invalid arguments.

Well that's the 'Net for you.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Notice the attempt to save face by attacking the accuser again. This is failing to justify your own statements again. Please learn to support your statements and justifications without relying on attacking others.

Can't say I agree. Having just essentially been branded a 'tard or a liar by the lofty Dr Thor, it is, in my view, perfectly reasonable to directly respond to the same.

In any event, I make no apologies for deliberately avoiding any in depth response to some of Thors pompous, and dare I say pointless, jargon laced critiques.

For example http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...2&postcount=50 which was essentially a pretentious argument about how to argue.

In addition, I admit it, simply ignoring the same pyrrhic effort gave me a small degree of satisfaction.

I would say that I have in fact been both supporting my statements and engaged in low level juvenile bickering.
And lets be clear, Thors propensity for big words makes him no less childish in his motivations.

And, in my case, your decision to focus solely on the bickering doesn't to justice to the case I've been making.
Hope we can sort that in future discussions.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am curious to investigate this.

Good to have you on board.

Originally Posted by moonshine

A fair point, as Thor clearly demonstrates. That said, theres a lot to be said for experience and expertise in a specific field, which is why I'm inclined to accept the conclusions of the scientists as opposed to Thors simplistic argument that conclusions don't stand unless they are presented in a way which is acceptable to Thor.

Please pay attention - I am only speaking to you in my post, not Thor. Please stop defending yourself by trying to attack others - it does nothing but make you look like an ass. I made a completely separate post for Thor to keep the sake of discussion going.

Not really. I've deliberately avoiding retyping numerous pages of related scientific references, for what I would hope are obvious reasons.
In relation to the section which I quoted, I provided the Author and Title of the book. Clearly, Insofar as I can, I've provided the source.

You have provided the source in an incredibly lazy fashion. This is parallel to me now saying, "please go read ethics for dummies" instead of elaborating my points.

You are not offering anything substantial or credible besides an arbitrary name and it is up to you to make specific references to why you cite those specific sources rather than simply randomly throw around book names and authors to try and defend yourself.

Otherwise, we would all just say, "I am right because Darwin wrote Origin of Species, oh and Dawkins wrote X" - this does nothing at all but rely too heavily on an illogical fallacy of authorship reliance.

Incorrect. It was a fairly simple accusation. Thor stated that I had brought up the previous discussion. In reality Thor did. In any event this is a very minor point. I'd suggest its a bit embarassing for either of us to make too much out of it.

You're still failing to justify your own point and again resort to attacking Thor instead of supporting the accusation to yourself. If the statement is wrong about yourself, it should be easy to clear up rather than resort to "YOU DID IT TOO" response.

Well that's the 'Net for you.

Either you misunderstood my point or you are using an ad hominem against me which, judging by your posting content, is typical. Please consider the fact that your social and debate skills will resort in the result of you feeling lonely and angry at the world rather than tempting to reconcile and consider that you might be wrong on a few things and that you can learn from others.

Can't say I agree. Having just essentially been branded a 'tard or a liar by the lofty Dr Thor, it is, in my view, perfectly reasonable to directly respond to the same.

That is a leading question that Thor did, yes, but this does not save your face. Please stop trying to defend yourself by attacking others, it's beginning to look desperate.

In any event, I make no apologies for deliberately avoiding any in depth response to some of Thors pompous, and dare I say pointless, jargon laced critiques.

You are still significantly failing at justifying yourself by attacking others. Your ad hominems do nothing but demonstrate your lacking perspicacity for logical and civil dispute.

For example http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...2&postcount=50 which was essentially a pretentious argument about how to argue.

My original point that you are responding to now is that you cannot justify yourself without attacking others and here you are sourcing a post by someone else beside yourself. You have illustrated your failure to adapt to debate ethics. Please consider adapting appropriate behaviour in debates or you may find yourself alone and still angry with the world thinking, "THEY'RE ALL IDIOTS AND DONT UNDERSTAND ME!"

In addition, I admit it, simply ignoring the same pyrrhic effort gave me a small degree of satisfaction.

I would say that I have in fact been both supporting my statements and engaged in low level juvenile bickering.
And lets be clear, Thors propensity for big words makes him no less childish in his motivations.

Actually, as I have shown, you have not been supporting your statements. You have been lazy and simply throwing around names without specific references or sources. When a paper is written about a topic, the sources are usually to specific pages not the entire book. This is just the same as saying, "I don't know, go read it yourself."

And, in my case, your decision to focus solely on the bickering doesn't to justice to the case I've been making.
Hope we can sort that in future discussions.

I could just instead lock the thread like most mod responses are, but I try and reconcile first. First by interjecting with my own critique and then resorting to PM's and then locking. I do not like ending the discussion - I know that you enjoy the debate, however "bad" it may be, and come back to read our responses and I like that! I like the discussion on here! The bickering is bad, and I'd like it to be civil and respectful.

However, if you want me to instead ignore the bickering and let it go on and on, I won't - I'd rather lock it. But what I most don't understand here is that your point in this quote is that I ought to, as a mod, not care about people bickering on the board??

Is this just an example of your taste for bitter dispute or am I missing something?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Try to re-state your original arguments in a more declarative style to help reconcile.

Alrighty then.

1) In Thors opinion the Term "Sleep Paralysis" can only be used with reference to the sleeping disorder. The majority of posters of DV understand the common meaning of "Sleep Paralysis", whether its a Colloquial term or not. Even if thor is technically correct (and the jury is still out on that) the term Sleep Paralysis (as used by laberge) will remain in common use amongst the lucid dreaming community

2) Thor states the Sleep paralysis is actually REM Atonia and can only take place in REM sleep. For this reason he has concluded that, outside of "Sleep Paralysis Disorder" there is no evidence that you can induce Sleep paralysis to WILD. His salient point seems to be that as you can only experience REM Atonia in REM sleep then you can't be experiencing REM atonia as you initiate a WILD.

This has been disputed and reference has been made to the significant records of anecdotal experience amongst the Lucid dreaming community. More on this later.

3) Further discussion has revealed that REM like dreams do indeed occur during a nominal period of NREM sleep (something which Thor actually initially pointed out). However, the majority of NREM dreams are more akin to thought dreams.

Now it makes sense that Sleep Paralysis isn't required during NREM as you're not inhabiting 3D virtual dream worlds and so will not run around the bedroom as you act out your dreams. But what of those REM like dreams.

Well the paper that I linked concludes that REM atonia actually occours outside of REM sleep (making the term Muscle Atonia more accurate). In point of fact it ramps up before REM sleep, and drops down after REM sleep. It makes logical sense that the REM like NREM dreams occour when Muscle Atonia is ramping up and down - therefore preventing you acting out the REM like dreams.

The paper concludes that

These findings indicate that a REM sleep episode is not sharply delimited but that it has antecedents during NREM sleep and that it vanishes gradually in the succeeding NREM sleep episode.

I would suggest that this makes sense to WILDers. WILD attempts are clearly not simple on/off physical/mental functions. A transition period is clearly observed.

In view of the U-shaped distribution of MAN (Muscle Atonia in NREM) episodes it is unlikely that they are analogous events.

THOR Insists the REM Atonia can ONLY occur in REM sleep - hence the name. Anything outwith REM atonia is dismissed by THOR as low muscle tone. But this seems to be a simple semantic stubborness.

In view of the U-shaped distribution of MAN (Muscle Atonia in NREM) episodes it is unlikely that they are analogous events.

The paper concludes that the U shaped curve clearly indicates that the ramping up and down of Muscle Atonia at either side of the REM period (Where REM atonia occours) is unlikely to be co-incidental. If we accept that REM Atonia (muscle atonia in REM) and MAN (Muscle Atonia in NREM) are similar physiological functions, the observations and theory holds together quite logically.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Alrighty then.

1) In Thors opinion the Term "Sleep Paralysis" can only be used with reference to the sleeping disorder. The majority of posters of DV understand the common meaning of "Sleep Paralysis", whether its a Colloquial term or not. Even if thor is technically correct (and the jury is still out on that) the term Sleep Paralysis (as used by laberge) will remain in common use amongst the lucid dreaming community

I agree, these are good points that Thor does need to support.

2) Thor states the Sleep paralysis is actually REM Atonia and can only take place in REM sleep. For this reason he has concluded that, outside of "Sleep Paralysis Disorder" there is no evidence that you can induce Sleep paralysis to WILD. His salient point seems to be that as you can only experience REM Atonia in REM sleep then you can't be experiencing REM atonia as you initiate a WILD.

This has been disputed and reference has been made to the significant records of anecdotal experience amongst the Lucid dreaming community. More on this later.

What were the references aside from DV itself...? Hopefully more than just book naming.

3) Further discussion has revealed that REM like dreams do indeed occur during a nominal period of NREM sleep (something which Thor actually initially pointed out). However, the majority of NREM dreams are more akin to thought dreams.

Right, I think this is agreed upon with everyone, no..?

THOR Insists the REM Atonia can ONLY occur in REM sleep - hence the name. Anything outwith REM atonia is dismissed by THOR as low muscle tone. But this seems to be a simple semantic stubborness.

Asserting that REM Atonia can only occur in REM sleep is interesting and I'd like to see more evidence. I am sure that there are rare cases that can quell this assertion, but I cannot source any at the moment.

Good points Moonshine, I look forward to Thor's response.

~

Just so that, if EWOLD is discussed, everyone knows what it says in EWOLD:

While all this activity is happening in your brain, your body remains almost completely still (except for small twitches), because it is temporarily paralyzed during REM sleep to prevent you from acting out your dreams. The “sleep paralysis” of REM sleep doesn’t always turn off immediately upon awakening; this is why you may have experienced waking up and not being able to move for a minute. Sleep paralysis can seem a terrifying experience, but actually it is quite harmless, and indeed, can even be useful for inducing lucid dreams (see Chapter 4). (EWOLD, p.~23)

Sometimes the REM systems don’t turn on or off at the same time. For example, you may awaken partially from REM sleep, before the paralysis system turns off, so that your body is still paralyzed even though you are otherwise awake. Sleep paralysis, as this condition is called, can occur while people are falling asleep (rarely) or waking up (more frequently). If you don’t know what’s happening, your first experience with sleep paralysis can terrifying. People typically struggle in a fruitless effort re or to fully wake up. In fact, such emotional panic reactions are completely counterproductive; they are likely to stimulate the limbic (emotional) areas of the brain and cause the REM state to persist. The fact is, sleep paralysis is harmless. Sometimes when it happens to you, you feel as if you are suffocating or in the presence of a nameless evil. But this is just the way your half-dreaming brain interprets these abnormal conditions: something terrible must be happening! The medieval stories of incubus attacks (malevolent spirits believed to descend upon and have sex with sleeping women) probably derived from fantastically over-interpreted experiences of sleep paralysis. The next time you experience sleep paralysis, simply remember to relax. Tell yourself that you are in the same state now as you are several hours every night during REM sleep. It will do you no harm and will pass in a few minutes. Sleep paralysis is not only nothing to be frightened of, it can be something to be sought after and cultivated. Whenever you experience sleep paralysis you are on the threshold REM sleep. You have, as it were, one foot in the dream state and one in the waking state. Just step over and you’re in the world of lucid dreams. In the following exercises we sent several techniques for taking that step. (EWOLD, p. ~79)

To me it seems like the biggest problem is websites like DV having inaccurate tutorials and videos online teaching WILD/AP that inaccurately use the term, than EWOLD itself. Just think, if he had said 'paralysis' instead of 'sleep paralysis', or used REM atonia accurately... Quite honestly I don't think the average person pays that much attention to the slight details in EWOLD like this, and so if the rest of us just use the terms intelligently and accurately we can shift the use of terminology to be accurate.

*bows out*

PS I really wish that there was a study on definitively, whether people can learn to get themselves into SP and assuming yes (since I assume yes) what the learning curve is like on average, if you're predisposed to it, if you can get it easier if you suffer it, if it's really better to lay on your back, blah blah blah, and to be really monitoring the muscles and not just relying on self reports of mere hypnagogic hallucinations rather than true paralysis. And then we could work on why it is that SP eclipses HIT and VILD.

Originally Posted by Shift

Just so that, if EWOLD is discussed, everyone knows what it says in EWOLD:

To me it seems like the biggest problem is websites like DV having inaccurate tutorials and videos online teaching WILD/AP that inaccurately use the term, than EWOLD itself. Just think, if he had said 'paralysis' instead of 'sleep paralysis', or used REM atonia accurately... Quite honestly I don't think the average person pays that much attention to the slight details in EWOLD like this, and so if the rest of us just use the terms intelligently and accurately we can shift the use of terminology to be accurate.

*bows out*

PS I really wish that there was a study on definitively, whether people can learn to get themselves into SP and assuming yes (since I assume yes) what the learning curve is like on average, if you're predisposed to it, if you can get it easier if you suffer it, if it's really better to lay on your back, blah blah blah, and to be really monitoring the muscles and not just relying on self reports of mere hypnagogic hallucinations rather than true paralysis. And then we could work on why it is that SP eclipses HIT and VILD.

Hiya shift. The section you quoted (which is on page 108 in my edition of EWOLD) refers to Attention on Body or Self during wild.

The opening paragraph - If you focus on your body while falling asleep, you will sometimes notice a condition in which it seems to undergo extreme distortions, or begins to shake with mysterious vibrations, or becomes completely paralyzed. All of these unusual bodily states are related to the process of sleep onset and particularly REM sleep paralysis.

In the tutorials thereafter Laberge states:

Watch for signs of strange sensations, vibrations, and distortions of your body image. These are the harbringers of REM sleep paralysis.

There seems to be little doubt.
The vibrations etc which many lucid dreamers have experienced is the onset of "sleep paralysis".

We also understand the reasons for these strange feelings. This is the transition zone from external physical input to internal dream input.

So clearly, as far as EWOLD is concerned, when wilding we can physically experience the transition to REM sleep and sleep paralysis.
(or indeed REM like dreams during NREM sleep and sleep paralysis).

On this basis, I would argue the the common use of the term "Sleep Paralysis" to describe REM Muscle Atonia or Muscle Atonia in NREM is fairly understandable.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What were the references aside from DV itself...? Hopefully more than just book naming.
~

Sorry, I got distracted responding to your other post.

Thor asserts that, as we cannot wire our brains and bodies up to laboratory equipment, that the significant amount of anecdotal evidence (i.e. the descriptions of DV Lucid Dreamer WILD attempts) is worthless.

This is clearly not the case. It is no co-incidence that so many of us have experienced the WILD transition into a dream exactly as described by laberge.

I my self have felt the "SP wave" on a number of occasions.

Crucially, I have experienced it on occasions when I have not been trying to wild. Once was falling asleep. I suddenly woke up having felt as if I had been pulled from the bed by my feet. Gave me a fright!

I have also experienced it once when slowly waking up. In what I can only assume was SP "switching off" I felt the wave just before I became fully conscious and awake.

On another occasion when WILDing I very much experienced some of the symptoms of Sleep Paralysis Disorder. I felt the vibrations and the SP wave. I also felt like I was being roughly touched by some malevolent entity. Creepy. After which I dropped into a dream.
I personally didn't choose to open my eyes or test the paralysis, but there are posters who have indeed done the same.

Simply rejecting these and other testimonies based on nothing but personal opinion is neither credible or logical.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right, I think this is agreed upon with everyone, no..?
~

To varying degrees I think. Until recently I understood that we did dream thought like dreams during on NREM, but I only recently became aware of the REM like NREM dreams, which, on review of the evidence, I now fully accept.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Asserting that REM Atonia can only occur in REM sleep is interesting and I'd like to see more evidence. I am sure that there are rare cases that can quell this assertion, but I cannot source any at the moment.
~

I would suggest that the "REM" in "REM Ationa" is no longer sufficent evidence.

As far as quelling the assertion, the paper I have linked to previously, IMO, does just that. Science appears to have moved on, and the case is now being made for a transition zone between NREM and REM sleep where both
REM Like Dreams and "REM-Atonia" like "Muscle Atonia in NREM" occours.

O_O I never knew it was considered a disorder.
I think someone mentioned it to me once somewhere but I forgot until now.
Consider me afflicted, I guess XD But if its a disorder, I wonder if there's a "cure" ??
Because if I don't need it to WILD I dont want it at all. It happens too often,
& the vibrations wouldn't be so bad its just when I can't breathe (or think I cant, or have my face in the pillow while paralysed : / )

Originally Posted by Yume.no.ato

O_O I never knew it was considered a disorder.
I think someone mentioned it to me once somewhere but I forgot until now.
Consider me afflicted, I guess XD But if its a disorder, I wonder if there's a "cure" ??
Because if I don't need it to WILD I dont want it at all. It happens too often,
& the vibrations wouldn't be so bad its just when I can't breathe (or think I cant, or have my face in the pillow while paralysed : / )

From what I can gather its not neccesary. Certainly if you focus on other aspects you may not even notice it.

I once tried to WILD first thing at night. The experience of my body entering SP, when it did come, was very intense and could easily have been distressing. However, when I wild after WBTB's, I still feel the wave, but its nowhere near as overwhelming.

^ Ohhh~ I'll have to try that...
But as for the "Cure" I meant not just for when LDing,
For anytime. I get SP chronically, its pretty agitating >: (
Its usually after I wake up from already sleeping, but lately its upon trying to sleep. Bleh.

Originally Posted by Yume.no.ato

^ Ohhh~ I'll have to try that...
But as for the "Cure" I meant not just for when LDing,
For anytime. I get SP chronically, its pretty agitating >: (
Its usually after I wake up from already sleeping, but lately its upon trying to sleep. Bleh.

Sorry to hear that. Yeah I'll bet its not much fun.
I had one WILD experience which was a bit rougher than normal.
I felt a nasty presence and someone roughly touching my body.
Even though I knew it was all in my head, I was glad to get into the dream.

The only advice I could give (based on what i've read on DV) is to close your eyes and try and enter a dream.

Or if you want to break the paralysis I've read that starting with moving your fingertips helps.

Originally Posted by Yume.no.ato

^ Ohhh~ I'll have to try that...
But as for the "Cure" I meant not just for when LDing,
For anytime. I get SP chronically, its pretty agitating >: (
Its usually after I wake up from already sleeping, but lately its upon trying to sleep. Bleh.

Yeah...I have that "disorder" too. A good deal of the time I can turn it into a LD. Other times I'm just struggling to get out of it because I feel like I can't breath or move.

And shift, I'm glad you made this post to clarify things related to SP and ISP. Hopefully we'll see some other clarification throughout the site. I have suffered from ISP all of my life, and the more I think about it, the more I question my own ability to WILD....maybe my technique is total crap.

Originally Posted by Thor

If you are in sleep paralysis, you cannot possibly know that you have it before you have tried to move and failed. If you don't report the symptom, you don't have the disorder. It would be analogous to saying "I had a horrible headache; I didn't feel any pain at all, but I just know I had it."

first off when you are asleep, that is SP. so, if you know you are dreaming, then do you know that you can't move? and do you figure this out without really trying to move? serious tho, i'm not sure what will make you feel SP (like a hag) or if you even have control over that, but there is more than just trying to move.

Originally Posted by sleepingdog

first off when you are asleep, that is SP. so, if you know you are dreaming, then do you know that you can't move? and do you figure this out without really trying to move? serious tho, i'm not sure what will make you feel SP (like a hag) or if you even have control over that, but there is more than just trying to move.

No, that is REM atonia. You are confusing the two.

Also, hallucinations =/= sleep paralysis.

Originally Posted by Shift

No, that is REM atonia. You are confusing the two.

Also, hallucinations =/= sleep paralysis.

But as noted, we're simply using the term in the way laberge does.

The exact precise scientific term may be REM atonia (though given recent evidence the REM part may be not be technically accurate either).
But that doesn't mean the simple term "sleep paralysis" is incorrect.

I realise this is a bug bear of yours (and mine) but really, whats in a name.

When I look at the sky I see clouds, not "A visible body of very fine water droplets or ice particles suspended in the atmosphere".

Its simply a case of semantics. REM atonia may be the strict technical medical description of the same.
But "Sleep paralysis" is a perfectly acceptable description for the same.

I think most DVers understand the difference between whats meant by Sleep paralysis as a normal biological function in Rem sleep and "Sleep paralysis" the condition. In which case telling every one who uses the term sleep paralysis that they're wrong
may simply add to confusion rather than clear things up.

I have to say, even if you, Thor and I all eventually agree on acceptable terminology (assuming we have the right),
the chances of encouraging the rest of the lucid community to adopt the same is remote at best.

I'm also not convinced there is truly a need to do so.

If it works for you and gets you lucid, do it.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/000801.htm

Isolated sleep paralysis is a type of paralysis associated with a sleep disorder.

Sleep paralysis is the inability to perform voluntary muscle movements during sleep.

So "sleep paralysis" is simply the paralysis of the body.

"Isolated sleep paralysis" is the medical condition.

I just want to add some more confusion to the discussion. What about sleep paralysis when sitting on meditation?
I have had hallucinatory experiences some years ago when entering deep meditative state, which now in retrospective I think were preceded by really brief SP experience - barely noticed.
I brewed this idea these last few days, because I have experienced the start of SP during sitting meditation two times again. I was sitting, still as a rock and I started to feel SP effects: only in my hands - feeling extremely heavy and paralyzed. I was so excited that I didn't manage to let it go the rest of the way, but I will try to let it go the whole way next time. I don't know how to avoid bumping with my head on the floor if I do get totally paralyzed during this experiment, but I can't help trying.
Anybody had similar experience?