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

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."

Ah, I beg to differ Thor.
I have the disorder Sleep Paralysis and have experienced SP an unimaginable amount of times. By unimaginable, try to think of experiencing SP at least 3 times a month (more or less) or once every other a week (again more or less) (these numbers are estimates of course, but Id say very close to the actual number) for sevens years . My first experience with SP was when I was 11; how did I know I was in SP? Simply put, I was conscious and couldn't move, that's how. Of course I didn't know about REM Atonia or SP until I was about 14. But the point is, once you've experienced SP as many times as I have, you get to the point where you don't necessarily "have" to move to know that you're in it at all. After experiencing SP on an "every-other-weekly" basis, you began to notice a pattern or a certain "feeling", if you will, of SP/REM Atonia. So to say that one has to try to move in order to know that they are in SP is incorrect. Please do not tell me that I'm incorrect because this is not coming from a scientific source, its coming from introspection.

Originally Posted by Thor

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.

Again, more introspection.
The thing I found about SP is that when you "try" to move, most often in a state of panic, you're sending a message to your brain that you're not unconscious (or your mind isn't asleep), and hence, not supposed to be in SP, which in turn, releases the paralysis. Every time I experienced SP (besides the times that I WILD with a WBTB), I woke myself by relentlessly trying to move until I did, in fact, wake up, moments after falling back to asleep. So its not a contradiction, its the way the body works. SP is, after all, a disorder, so a paralysis is sure to be lifted once the brain becomes aware that something is out of order.

Damn, I'd induce a WILD but I'm so damn affraid of SP!

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Damn, I'd induce a WILD but I'm so damn affraid of SP!

...and I'd date Heidi Klum...but I'm just afraid to ask!

Jokes

I can't believe we are right back to this same debate. It is not that difficult to answer this question, for yourself. Follow all the advice for a traditional WILD, and you can experience, firsthand, what happens to your consciousness as you pass through different phases of sleep. You can hold onto your awareness for several hours, or even the whole night if you try.

Thor, it is a little hypocritical that you claim to rely so heavily on science and peer reviewed research for your arguments, when in reality you are doing just the opposite. You are cherrypicking information and nitpicking semantics to try to make it fit exactly into your hypothesis so you don't have to admit you are wrong. This is terrible scientific methodology. Science is not argument or debating, it is discovery and truth seeking.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

I can't believe we are right back to this same debate. It is not that difficult to answer this question, for yourself. Follow all the advice for a traditional WILD, and you can experience, firsthand, what happens to your consciousness as you pass through different phases of sleep. You can hold onto your awareness for several hours, or even the whole night if you try.

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.

Thor, it is a little hypocritical that you claim to rely so heavily on science and peer reviewed research for your arguments, when in reality you are doing just the opposite. You are cherrypicking information and nitpicking semantics to try to make it fit exactly into your hypothesis so you don't have to admit you are wrong. This is terrible scientific methodology. Science is not argument or debating, it is discovery and truth seeking.

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.

But both RB and Myself accept that vivid dreams can occour - to some degree - outside of REM. So you may now be arguing with no-one.

FYI RB's not making reference to that particular discussion. He's making reference to your previous assertions on SP during WILDs.

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

Hey, what do you think about the papers conclusion that atonia occours outside REM? Muscle atonia = rem atonia.
Interesting no?

Counting Sheep: The Science and pleasures of Sleep and Dreams. Paul Martin.

Do dreams occour only in rem sleep, or might we dream all night long? The Idea that dreaming is exclusively linked to REM Sleep has been overturned.
A lot depends however on what is meant by "dream". We tend to associate the word with bizzare and visually rich narrative dreams of REM sleep, in contrast to the more mundane thought processes of waking consciousness. When people are woken from NREM sleep and asked if they are dreaming , they reply yes only on about 7-8% for occasions. However, if instead they are asked wether they were thinking about anything, they say yes far more often. In fact people woken from NREM sleep report some form of mental activity on 40-60% of occasions.

The "dreams" that occour during NREM sleep are different. They are generally less vivid, less surreal, less unpleasant and less "dream-like" than classic dreams. They lack bizarre story lines, the strong emotions the strong emotions and intense imagery. In fact they are more like conventional waking thoughts or fragments of ideas. NREM dreams are also shorter and less complex than REM dreams".

There's three pages of scientific references to the chapter this text quotes.
Enough to satisfy THOR even.



It seems the answer to the OPs question is this:

It may be possible to have a Lucid dream outside of what we technically call REM sleep, in the brief transition periods between NREM and REM.

But generally NREM dreams are very different from REM dreams.

It may not be possible to have a "Lucid dream" as we understand it during NREM.
But it may be possible to be aware that your in NREM - in a meditative way - which might be described as a type of lucidity.

Originally Posted by moonshine

FYI RB's not making reference to that particular discussion. He's making reference to your previous assertions on SP during WILDs.

I was replying to the subject of this discussion. It was your choice to change the subject, not mine.

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

Hey, what do you think about the papers conclusion that atonia occours outside REM? Muscle atonia = rem atonia.
Interesting no?

Sleep paralysis is a sleep disorder where

1. motor activity is inhibited by blockade of neurons in the brainstem
2. the person is normally awake or at least not in REM sleep

I have said very clearly, on multiple occasions, that you can initiate a WILD from sleep paralysis, so please stop lying. Misrepresenting an opponent's position is called a straw man argument. This is one of the lowest and most disingenuous debating tactics, so either you are incapable of rational debate or you are simply dishonest.

What I have also said, and which is entirely consistent with the above as well as existing research, is that if you are not afflicted with the disorder sleep paralysis, there is no evidence that you can induce it at will. In order to falsify this, you would need to show that both points 1 and 2 above are present for subjects that are not afflicted with sleep paralysis.

You have cited the paper by Werth et al. to support your point, but it doesn't show point 1, because the method employed was to measure submental EMG, that is, they simply measured the muscle tension in the subject's chin, and then they set an arbitrary limit and called everything below that limit "atonia". Low muscle tension in the chin is not evidence of blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem.

Originally Posted by moonshine

There's three pages of scientific references to the chapter this text quotes.
Enough to satisfy THOR even.

As I said not long ago, you can't just list a bunch of references at the end. You actually need to reference each particular claim, and I don't see any references here.

What exactly is it you think this text proves? Since you seem incabable of understanding elementary properties of statistical distributions, please allow me to spoon feed it to you by using a simple example: May is generally colder than July, but it would be easy to find examples of many May days that were as warm as the average July day. I never said that NREM dreams are the same as REM dreams, just like I wouldn't claim that May is as warm as July. What I said was that there is a significant proportion of NREM dreams, occurring nowhere near REM sleep, that are as vivid and complex as typical REM dreams. The above book quotation notwithstanding, there are plenty of articles that confirm this.

Originally Posted by Thor

As I said not long ago, you can't just list a bunch of references at the end. You actually need to reference each particular claim, and I don't see any references here.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Thor

What exactly is it you think this text proves? Since you seem incabable of understanding elementary properties of statistical distributions, please allow me to spoon feed it to you by using a simple example: May is generally colder than July, but it would be easy to find examples of many May days that were as warm as the average July day. I never said that NREM dreams are the same as REM dreams, just like I wouldn't claim that May is as warm as July. What I said was that there is a significant proportion of NREM dreams, occurring nowhere near REM sleep, that are as vivid and complex as typical REM dreams. The above book quotation notwithstanding, there are plenty of articles that confirm this.

Although in point of fact it seems to be a relatively insignificant proportion of dreams, which probably co-incide with the transition period when Muscle (REM) atonia is kicking in at the start and end of NREM periods.

Originally Posted by Thor

I was replying to the subject of this discussion. It was your choice to change the subject, not mine.

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

Originally Posted by Thor

(Didn't we have this discussion last year?)

Yup!

Originally Posted by Thor

Sleep paralysis is a sleep disorder where

1. motor activity is inhibited by blockade of neurons in the brainstem
2. the person is normally awake or at least not in REM sleep

I have said very clearly, on multiple occasions, that you can initiate a WILD from sleep paralysis, so please stop lying. Misrepresenting an opponent's position is called a straw man argument. This is one of the lowest and most disingenuous debating tactics, so either you are incapable of rational debate or you are simply dishonest.

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 :

Originally Posted by Thor

Well, I actually did say that if you get sleep paralysis you can use it as a tool to initiate WILDs from.

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.

i.e. you did not accept that WILDers can consciously enter sleep paralysis to enter a lucid dream.

Originally Posted by Thor

What I have also said, and which is entirely consistent with the above as well as existing research, is that if you are not afflicted with the disorder sleep paralysis, there is no evidence that you can induce it at will.

Carefully excluding, of course, the numerous personal testimonies of posters, like RB, who have managed to achieve exactly that.
I believe you decided this doesn't count.

Originally Posted by Thor

You have cited the paper by Werth et al. to support your point, but it doesn't show point 1, because the method employed was to measure submental EMG, that is, they simply measured the muscle tension in the subject's chin, and then they set an arbitrary limit and called everything below that limit "atonia". Low muscle tension in the chin is not evidence of blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem.

LOL. In your opinion Thor.

The Scientists who produced the peer reviewed heavily referenced scientific paper produced by scientists at a scientific institution seem quite clear. The muscle atonia they are refering to is the same in both REM and NREM.
It is no co-incidence that the U pattern they described ramped up, carried on through the REM period, then dropped down again.
It is no co-incidence that people woken at the start and end of NREM periods describe REM like dreams, but weren't running around the labs shouting "Keep the demons away from me, the chicken-horses need sustenance. Now unhand that soup".

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.

Hey Thor, what does Electrophysiological mean?

You're too busy arguing about the tree to see the woods!

Where is the love?

(Unstoppable force) -> (Hits an) -> (unmovable object)
/ /
( Moonshine ) -> (Hits an) -> ( Thor )
( ( Problem. ) )

/

Catch my point?

Originally Posted by wet_roof113

My take on it is that science cannot prove that don't dream in non-rem sleep, so I think we do.

You've skipped a few posts I think.
Science has in fact proven that we do dream in NREM.
Its the dream content which varies.

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.

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

A mere list of references is not sufficient by itself; each particular claim needs to be supported by at least one reference.

Although in point of fact it seems to be a relatively insignificant proportion of dreams, which probably co-incide with the transition period when Muscle (REM) atonia is kicking in at the start and end of NREM periods.

Some studies cite figures of 10-30%, while the more conservative studies cite 5-10%. This is very significant. And quite to the contrary of what you are saying, many of these dream reports were obtained nowhere near REM sleep. You can find the citations in note 11 of What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis. In particular the NREM dream report quoted in that note was obtained 25 minutes after the last REM episode.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Speaking of straw men, please show me where I've lied?

This is what I wrote in What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis:

If you are one of the few people who get sleep paralysis as a disorder, you can know that although it may be scary, it's not in any way dangerous. And you can even turn it into an advantage by initiating WILDs from this state.

Then, earlier in this thread, you wrote:

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

Ergo, you claim that I said the exact opposite of what I did. There are only two possibilities here: either you are unable to comprehend simple sentences, or you are a liar.

Heres what you did - in fact - say previously :

Well, I actually did say that if you get sleep paralysis you can use it as a tool to initiate WILDs from.

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.

i.e. you did not accept that WILDers can consciously enter sleep paralysis to enter a lucid dream.

Yes, that is what I said, and no one has so far offered any evidence to the contrary of any of these points. Besides, how do you interpret this as "you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams", when in fact I'm saying precisely that you can use SP to enter lucid dreams? Again, I'm forced to conclude that either you are unable to comprehend simple sentences, or you are a liar.

Carefully excluding, of course, the numerous personal testimonies of posters, like RB, who have managed to achieve exactly that.
I believe you decided this doesn't count.

That is correct; personal testimonies do not count. When you aspire to use science to support your claims, you play by the rules of science.

LOL. In your opinion Thor.

The Scientists who produced the peer reviewed heavily referenced scientific paper produced by scientists at a scientific institution seem quite clear. The muscle atonia they are refering to is the same in both REM and NREM.

I agree that the paper is quite clear; it just doesn't support what you think it does. The muscle atonia they are referring to is simply lack of muscle tension in the chin. There is normally least tension in REM and slightly more in NREM. However, EMG data alone does not prove blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem; that actually has to be measured.

It is no co-incidence that the U pattern they described ramped up, carried on through the REM period, then dropped down again.
It is no co-incidence that people woken at the start and end of NREM periods describe REM like dreams, but weren't running around the labs shouting "Keep the demons away from me, the chicken-horses need sustenance. Now unhand that soup".

Your assertions that these things are not coincidences prove nothing whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Thor

This is what I wrote in What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis:

If you are one of the few people who get sleep paralysis as a disorder, you can know that although it may be scary, it's not in any way dangerous. And you can even turn it into an advantage by initiating WILDs from this state.

Then, earlier in this thread, you wrote:

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

Ergo, you claim that I said the exact opposite of what I did. There are only two possibilities here: either you are unable to comprehend simple sentences, or you are a liar.

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.

You've latched onto a single quote and are selling it out of context.
Here are the other related quotes.

Originally Posted by moonshine

(Best not to go into last years discussion - wasn't that when you were denying Sleep Paralysis could actually be used in WILD attempts?)

Originally Posted by moonshine

What, last year when you kept repeating that you didn't believe people were entering SP to WILD, despite numerous posters (now including me) describing how they were succesful in doing just that?

Or did you just choose to ignore them.
Your exact claim was that people could not deliberately induce SP to enter a Lucid Dream. i.e. a fairly typical WILD.
No surprise that you haven't gained a much support in that one.

Originally Posted by Thor

That is correct; personal testimonies do not count.

Says you. A lot of Science is based on observation Thor.

Originally Posted by Thor

I agree that the paper is quite clear; it just doesn't support what you think it does. The muscle atonia they are referring to is simply lack of muscle tension in the chin. There is normally least tension in REM and slightly more in NREM. However, EMG data alone does not prove blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem; that actually has to be measured.

So you keep saying.
Yet the scientists are quite clear. They are not differentiating between muscle atonia in REM or NREM.
They are measuring the same thing.

Originally Posted by Thor

Your assertions that these things are not coincidences prove nothing whatsoever.

The scientists disagree:-

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

Come on thor, are you unable to comprehend simple sentences?

Originally Posted by Thor

A mere list of references is not sufficient by itself; each particular claim needs to be supported by at least one reference.

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

Originally Posted by moonshine

The third possibility is that you're indulging a no small degree of selective dickish pedantry (colour me surprised).

In earlier posts, I said this:

If you are one of the few people who get sleep paralysis as a disorder, you can know that although it may be scary, it's not in any way dangerous. And you can even turn it into an advantage by initiating WILDs from this state.

...and this:

Well, I actually did say that if you get sleep paralysis you can use it as a tool to initiate WILDs from.

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.

Then you said this:

But both RB and Myself accept that vivid dreams can occour - to some degree - outside of REM. So you may now be arguing with no-one.

FYI RB's not making reference to that particular discussion. He's making reference to your previous assertions on SP during WILDs.

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

I quoted all the preceding paragraphs in your post, in order to show very clearly that this quote was not taken out of context.

Since you claimed that my statements on this subject were the exact contrary of what I actually said, there are only two logical possibilities here:

1. You are an illiterate, unable to comprehend the meaning of simple sentences.
2. You are a liar.

There is no third possibility. If you think there is a third possibility, you don't even understand simple logic either.

So which one is it, moonshine? Are you an illiterate or a liar?

Originally Posted by Thor

In earlier posts, I said this:

If you are one of the few people who get sleep paralysis as a disorder, you can know that although it may be scary, it's not in any way dangerous. And you can even turn it into an advantage by initiating WILDs from this state.

...and this:

Well, I actually did say that if you get sleep paralysis you can use it as a tool to initiate WILDs from.

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.

Then you said this:

But both RB and Myself accept that vivid dreams can occour - to some degree - outside of REM. So you may now be arguing with no-one.

FYI RB's not making reference to that particular discussion. He's making reference to your previous assertions on SP during WILDs.

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

I quoted all the preceding paragraphs in your post, in order to show very clearly that this quote was not taken out of context.

Since you claimed that my statements on this subject were the exact contrary of what I actually said, there are only two logical possibilities here:

1. You are an illiterate, unable to comprehend the meaning of simple sentences.
2. You are a liar.

There is no third possibility. If you think there is a third possibility, you don't even understand simple logic either.

So which one is it, moonshine? Are you an illiterate or a liar?

And this epic thesis proves you're not engaging in dickish pedantry.....how exactly?

Originally Posted by moonshine

And this epic thesis proves you're not engaging in dickish pedantry.....how exactly?

To anyone who can actually read, this "thesis" proves my point very thoroughly, namely that you grossly misrepresented what I said as the exact opposite of what I did in fact say. This is an indisputable fact. The only thing about this that remains unclear is whether you did it because you were too stupid to understand the difference between a simple statement and its negation, or whether you did it out of malice, with the intent to libel and slander.

So just answer the question, moonshine: Are you an illiterate or a liar?

Originally Posted by Thor

To anyone who can actually read, this "thesis" proves my point very thoroughly, namely that you grossly misrepresented what I said as the exact opposite of what I did in fact say. This is an indisputable fact. The only thing about this that remains unclear is whether you did it because you were too stupid to understand the difference between a simple statement and its negation, or whether you did it out of malice, with the intent to libel and slander.

So just answer the question, moonshine: Are you an illiterate or a liar?

yawn.

the hammer of Thor thudding in obsessive repetition.

Whilst you babble on like rain main, I'll refer you to a previous post which already addressed this banal side issue sufficiently.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...8&postcount=86

And remember Thor. Every time you say you don't believe, a Lucid Dreamer dies....

Originally Posted by BigFan

Wow, you guys really must have some time on your hands and must love to duke it out Anyways, to the OP, I do think it's possible to have an LD in a NREM cycle, but, not sure to the mechanism of this

Yeah I have to admit, "Debates" like this with Thor usually end up Phyrric victories at best.

Its just pretty entertaining to see someone who is clearly an intelligent person put his fingers in his ears and defend his pet theory to the death, regardless of what evidence is put before him.

I particularly like how Thor manages to dismiss the works and assertions of highly qualified scientists and authors by stating "you can't do that" whilst it is painfully obvious that they can and did.

On otherwords, my friend is clever but not smart.

Originally Posted by moonshine

yawn.

I take your failure to answer that simple question as an implicit admission of illiteracy. As Hanlon's razor says, never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Illiteracy is also entirely consistent with your posts, manifesting itself in several distinct ways.

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. Finally, when replying to my posts you have in several instances engaged in a childish game of parroting my sentences, as if doing so could make those sentences apply to me instead of yourself.

Second, your argumentation is almost consistently invalid. Valid argumentation is governed according to the rules of logic, where one starts with a set of premises and makes a series of logical inferences leading to a conclusion. If the premises and argumentation are valid then the conclusion is also valid. But apparently you don't feel any obligation to follow these rules. You think anything that makes you sound cool also makes you right, and being right is what matters to you, as opposed to arguing right. As a result, most of your argumentation consists of non sequiturs, conclusions that don't follow logically from the premises. To you an argument is not about making logical inferences to support a particular claim, but to create the appearance of doing so. To you argumentation is theater, and words are your props.

Third, and most serious of all, you have out-and-out rejected logic itself. Logic forms the basis of all rational discourse, including science. When you believe that a statement is equivalent to its own negation, you believe a contradiction, thereby abandoning all logic.

Yet, despite all these serious cognitive defects, you see yourself as someone who has the capability to read and understand scientific research papers. The gap between your ambition and your ability is tragicomic.

However, you are providing a valuable and fascinating insight into your diseased mind when you are talking about "victory" in a debate. First, if you think a scientific debate is about "victory" and "being right", I'm afraid you must have confused it with a pissing contest. Second, if you somehow think you have achieved "victory" now, then your goal must have been to abolish all rational thought from your mind.