Read http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=67632 , Reply here to stay on topic ;)
Printable View
Read http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=67632 , Reply here to stay on topic ;)
Your right, you don't "need" SP to WILD. But it usually occurs in a WILD attempt. So is that the purpose of this thread, or is it supposed to be a continuation of the other one?
All the argueing in that other thread seems to be over words and what, in this case, sleep paralysis actually means. My definition of sleep paralysis is simple, your body is paralyzed when IT (meaning your body) is asleep.
I don't think you can really avoid SP in attempting a WILD. Which is why I stick to DILD, because I hate SP - of course you don't need it but it's there, for the torment :P
The underlying problem in the thread appears to be disagreement over what "sleep paralysis" refers to.
Some in the thread think of sleep paralysis as being just that, paralyzed while asleep. This is what happens basically every night when you fall asleep.
Others refer to sleep paralysis as being the HI, sounds, and sensations you sometimes experience on your way to sleep. There is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence on the forums that these sensations are in no way required to WILD successfully.
We need clarification on the term. What exactly does "SP" refer to?
Precisely :) LaBerge used SP as a general term to refer to REM atonia, as well as the occurrence of muscle paralysis outside of REM sleep, the strange sensations of buzzing, vibrating, etc... but sleep paralysis (the Hag Phenomenon) is the paralysis of your body when you wake up from or just before sleep... it's called isolated sleep paralysis, it's considered a disorder! So it's got quite a misleading name to begin with, seeing as you are no longer asleep when you experience it (as opposed to REM atonia). Then there are the hallucinations that your partially-dreaming mind uses to explain the sensations, etc... sort of a byproduct, if you will, but most importantly, the experience of isolated sleep paralysis is considered a disorder; clearly if we are finding ways to 'induce' this it isn't really a strict disorder, I guess hence the dropping of "isolated" and the retention of "sleep paralysis" even in the absence of sleep. But sleep paralysis, by definition, is the experience of REM atonia. So unless you are trying to move your body and you try to get out of bed and you are paralyzed, you aren't experiencing sleep paralysis. If you experience the 'derivative symptoms' (*shrug*), you still aren't actually experiencing sleep paralysis. You're experiencing some weird buzzing and shit. Even when you hallucinate that there are witches and evil shit and your body is buzzing or falling out the wazoo, you still aren't experiencing sleep paralysis, you're just buzzing and hallucinating. I guess the big problem is that these SP derived symptoms don't have a name of their own, so SP is used to cover REM atonia (normally and naturally), sleep paralysis as a disorder, sleep paralysis as an induced state by keeping your mind awake intentionally while drifting asleep and then finding that you can't move your body (which requires that you try to move your body), as well as all the hallucinations and weird perceptions you get as you fall asleep and experience REM atonia setting in early. And, most notably, the onset of REM atonia is not something that you experience unless you are trying to physically move your body and finding yourself paralyzed. So unless during a WILD attempt you decide to get out of bed and dance but find that you can't, no one is actually experiencing sleep paralysis while WILDing. The atonia related perceptions may or may not be experienced during a WILD, but if you aren't finding your body to be paralyzed, you aren't experiencing SP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Licity
I have a paper due in like 6 hours that I haven't started, so that's that for now. I have no idea what I said, please pick it apart!
can someone give me an estimate of how long it would take for sp to come about? like.. tried counting in your sleep? then how long it takes?
.. or is it bad to count at all?
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...rticlekey=9811
Quote:
Definition of Atonia, REM sleep
Atonia, REM sleep : A frightening form of paralysis that occurs when a person suddenly finds himself or herself unable to move for a few minutes, most often upon falling asleep or waking up. Commonly called sleep paralysis, the condition is due to an ill-timed disconnection between the brain and the body.
The symptoms of sleep paralysis include sensations of noises, smells, levitation, paralysis, terror, and images of frightening intruders. Once considered very rare, about half of all people are now believed to experience sleep paralysis sometime during their life.
Sleep paralysis strikes as a person is moving into or out of REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, the deepest part of sleep. During REM sleep the body is largely disconnected from the brain leaving the body paralyzed. Sleep paralysis is the result of premature (or persistent) mind-body disconnection as one is about to enter into (or exit from) REM sleep.
You missed the most important part:Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
Although it does say that all the hallucinations and terrors are symptoms of SP, it does say that you have find yourself unable to move- so the criteria being that you tried to move, found you couldn't, and then experienced all the other stuff, I guess. I don't like that site, just the way it starts out makes it seem illegitimate.Quote:
Sleep paralysis strikes as a person is moving into or out of REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, the deepest part of sleep. During REM sleep the body is largely disconnected from the brain leaving the body paralyzed.[this is atonia...] Sleep paralysis is the result of premature (or persistent) mind-body disconnection as one is about to enter into (or exit from) REM sleep.
This one does it better, nice and clear:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-REMatonia.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87...paralysis.html
And here is a great and easy read that I found linked on that site that is informative about REM in general:
http://www.ajpe.org/legacy/pdfs/aj620216.pdf
Best part:
ahahahaQuote:
"Generally, REM dreams are longer, more visual, more bizarre, and not as related to actual life events. Those dreams in which Elvis is skateboarding with your mother but it's not really your mother, it's really your cat, and suddenly Elvis has turned into Bullwinkle, although he still sings very well, is probably a REM sleep dream. Or incipient mental illness."
Wasn't thor banging on about him the only way you can know your in sleep paralysis is by trying to move and being unable to.
Is in not equally possible to be in sleep paralysis (or REM atonia or whatever), and, by willing yourself to move, break out of it.
Numerous posters have described this. Being able to move but being sluggish and slow initially.
yes you can break out of it. what basically happens is your mind wakes your body up. Thats why it doesnt go on forever, any time you "break" out of sleep paralysis, it is because your mind "willed" it to happen through its own means.
I guess I can only speak for myself here, but still - when reading the word "sleep paralyzis", the only thing I think about is not being able to move "while in bed" (I use the words "while in bed" on purpose, because I do not want to imply any specific situation or time I want to associate it with).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionsroar
As to answer your question - or at least telling you about my personal experiences - it's not a specific stage that happens after some time, it just happens when your mind enters your dream, and stops when you wake up.
Try the "first grab" method - the following things have happened to me when trying it:
-) I actually moved my body, and the dream scene disappeared -> I was too awake
-) The dream scene faded while I moved my dream body, and my physical body only moved a few inches
-) As the dream scene faded away I moved around in it for a short time, and my physical body wasn't moving *at all* until the scene had faded away completely.
-) I was in a lucid dream
My guess is that it's different for everybody. Our understanding of the brain is too limited to know exactly how things work. Maybe for some people it actually is a "stage" while falling asleep, where first the mind disconnects from the physical body, and only *then* starts creating the dream scene, which then also creates the possibility of being "stuck" in this stage... Clearly not the most comfortable thing to wish for ;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
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.Quote:
Is in not equally possible to be in sleep paralysis (or REM atonia or whatever), and, by willing yourself to move, break out of it.
Numerous posters have described this.
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.Quote:
Being able to move but being sluggish and slow initially.
Thanks for digging up these nice references, Shift.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shift
Yes, this is generally the case. If you read a description of a vivid, clearly recalled dream it's most likely an REM dream. But in a certain percentage of cases it will be an NREM dream. Studies disagree on how big this percentage is, but the suggested numbers are in the range 5-30%.Quote:
And here is a great and easy read that I found linked on that site that is informative about REM in general:
http://www.ajpe.org/legacy/pdfs/aj620216.pdf
Best part:
"Generally, REM dreams are longer, more visual, more bizarre, and not as related to actual life events. Those dreams in which Elvis is skateboarding with your mother but it's not really your mother, it's really your cat, and suddenly Elvis has turned into Bullwinkle, although he still sings very well, is probably a REM sleep dream. Or incipient mental illness."
I think you are on to something here, Shift. This is probably close to the source of all the confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shift
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.
A conclusions which is based on the definition you've decided is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Not particularly useful though in a community where the definition of "sleep paralysis" is collectively understood as what we experience
as we enter the dream state.
I'm not having a go. Just saying that semantic squabbles may be a bit of a waste of time.
I would say that the commonly understood definition of "sleep paralysis" on this forum is when you body goes into a mode which prevents actions in dreams from being acted out in the waking body.
Yes, there is a condition in which people can wake and not be able to move and experience fear and visions. But this is rare and, as you say, a medical condition.
But it seems to me that the insistance that "if you can move you weren't in sleep paralysis" is a false one (again based on the lucid dreaming communitys largely agreed definition). It seems perfectly reasonable to me that you can be in SP mode, and get out of it if and when you decide to do so. I would like to test this theory with the experiences of the community.
Though of course, as this interupts WILD attempts, most would choose not to.
Well, I would argue that the more types of experiences and phenomena you include in the definition, the more confusing it is, and the harder it becomes to have any fruitful conversation about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
This argument rests on your assumption that you can know when you are in REM sleep, but as far as I can see you still haven't explained how you can know this. What if you actually were in NREM sleep and only assumed you were in REM? And why would the difference matter to you at all?Quote:
But it seems to me that the insistance that "if you can move you weren't in sleep paralysis" is a false one (again based on the lucid dreaming communitys largely agreed definition). It seems perfectly reasonable to me that you can be in SP mode, and get out of it if and when you decide to do so.
You're still in semantic squabble mode.
I thought we'd already determined that it is possible to be in SP without being asleep and dreaming.
(That is SP as the community commonly knows it. Rem Atonia if you prefer)
Commonly called "sleep paralysis".Quote:
A frightening form of paralysis that occurs when a person suddenly finds himself or herself unable to move for a few minutes, most often upon falling asleep or waking up. Commonly called sleep paralysis, the condition is due to an ill-timed disconnection between the brain and the body.
They're not wrong are they? Regardless of the strict medical terms.
Of course. The prevalent theory is that sleep paralysis (the sleep disorder) is caused by REM atonia occurring outside of REM sleep. And your point was?Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
Actually I think it's really important that we do argue over semantics and set all of this straight. The more and more I read on DV, the more and more I realize that most of the people on here who talk about 'SP' have no idea what it is that they are talking about and as a result are having trouble lucid dreaming. Besides the desire for my own knowledge, and the desire for people to know what they are talking about (especially when they are writing tutorials or giving advice to others), as a DG I'm really realizing how this umbrella "SP" term is causing a lot of confusion and trouble and undue stress. The whole point of this site is to educate about what LDing is and how it can be achieved, and I'm starting to realize how critical it is that we all understand all the different stages of sleep and what and when we should be expecting things to occur.
I mean for starters, all the people trying to WILD when they first go to bed at night, and trying to get 'into SP'. :? Technically speaking, with what SP actually is, that is not gonna happen for at least an hour and a half, and it's only going to be a possibility for about ten minutes. Even though it's pretty common knowledge with people who pay attention to sleep cycles, I think the majority of people trying to WILD by using SP aren't understanding REM atonia, when it can occur, when SP can occur (with the literal definition of SP), blah blah blah.
Shift, I agree with you, the SP-term is confusing.
I havn't been reading all of the post in this thread or the other in which u guys were dicussing the use of this term - SP. Although, I come to the conclusion that this thread will ultimatly be rather useless unless the conclusions of this thread, including the nature of the term of SP, is saved somehow.
I loved the initiative taken by the DG's to clean up the tutorials section, and I couldn't help thinking that maybe you guys (DG's)could make some kind of list or list of threads explaining commonly used terms, like u did with the tutorials . This would be benificial as there would be established a kind of concensus or authority on the use of the terms. Discussions on dreams, techs and so on would be much easier if we all talked about the same thing! The first thread in which you guys talked about the nature of SP is a good example of the problem.
Explaniations on basic and more advanced terms used frequently on this forum would be appriciated by many I think. And for n00bs it would be much easier to get in to ld's if there was more info avalibe on the site to begin with.
i'm sorry if my english seem sloppy, it is a second language for me and im reeeealy tierd :)
please answer (especiallt you Shift as you're a DG :)) /Olof
No problem, your english was perfect :) Something like this is actually in the works, and another reason I think it's important to establish what all of these things that people commonly attribute to SP are!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ollei
Glad to hear you guys are working on this! Good luck! :)
Maybe you can get Laberge to change the terminology in the next edition of
Exploring the World Of Lucid Dreaming.
Oh man.... If I were ever able to talk to him... I'm not sure I'd waste my words on sleep paralysis...! hahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
Maybe this reference could also help:
http://www.astraldynamics.com/
I know. It is pretty well known site, but it gave me a lot of insight about what actually happens according to simple model Robert bruce developed. What i like about this model is not its spiritual context, but its simplicity. I especially like the term called deep relaxation which he uses to describe state, when it is hard to move the body at all, becouse we intentionally want it to shut down. No mention of sleep paralysis, no mention of atonia.
Actually what we want to achieve in our direct lucid dream entry is a state of total relaxation when you no longer feel your physical body, when you feel more internal than external. When you are in deep trance, and you no longer care about your physical body.
Some people name this experience as sleep paralysis. And if it works for them, its cool. Everyone at least a little experienced in terms of forum chatting asks for further explanation about what the author of the post meant if he said he was paralized, and then reacts with appropriate reply according to his experience.
If terminology makes problem, well, it would be wise just to invent new terms for what one is experiencing and then build on new set of terms in ones own research. (just internally not for communication). I have made some terms internally for myself... these are the terms i can relate to, when someone talks about this or that.
In my thought space, these terms are absolute, becouse they are linked to my experiences, in thought space of others, they have no meaning (Unless knew something about my experiences). Thats why - overtime I have accepted some terms from forums and even some dualism in these terms {Just as the one, we are discussing now, and many more} and added them to my internal dictionary, just becouse i wanted to relate to experiences of others.
Still If i am not sure about what autor of topic meant I ask him to clarify. You would be really surprised that there are not many people wanting to write down their experiences in more detail. And thats the situation we are currently in right now. People {count me in} use terms which have been born in some context and have been biased over time and even used in another context. Each participator of this forum adds to this bias with his own perspective. the only thing we can do about it is ask for further explanation or the experience behind if we want to understand more about what the actuall experience was all about. Of course over time if we find some people whose experiences we know, we can use our own terms for what we percieve and we would be more and more accurate in guessing what the other meant when writing what he wrote. IN LARGE COMMUNITY, we have to live with this bias, or create some sticky in noob section which everybody would learn as a basic communication protocoll in this forums.
I see only one resolution of this general problem which everybody could use right starting from this moment. And that would be to ask more deep questions, more questions about experience itself. Ask for clarification ... Simply ask more.
I am wondering ... isnt this what experienced members usually do?
Ah, I beg to differ Thor.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Again, more introspection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
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!
...and I'd date Heidi Klum...but I'm just afraid to ask!Quote:
Originally Posted by blue_space87
Jokes
:P
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot_Butler
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.Quote:
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.
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.
There's three pages of scientific references to the chapter this text quotes.Quote:
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".
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.
I was replying to the subject of this discussion. It was your choice to change the subject, not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
Sleep paralysis is a sleep disorder whereQuote:
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?
- motor activity is inhibited by blockade of neurons in the brainstem
- 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
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.
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. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
If you want an complete list of references, buy the book :D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Oh rly? Well speaking of made up arguments, weren't you actually the one who brought up previous discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Yup! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Thor
:roll: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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Heres what you did - in fact - say previously :
i.e. you did not accept that WILDers can consciously enter sleep paralysis to enter a lucid dream.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Carefully excluding, of course, the numerous personal testimonies of posters, like RB, who have managed to achieve exactly that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
I believe you decided this doesn't count. :(
LOL. In your opinion Thor.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Hey Thor, what does Electrophysiological mean? ;-)Quote:
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.
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?
You've skipped a few posts I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by wet_roof113
Science has in fact proven that we do dream in NREM.
Its the dream content which varies.
A mere list of references is not sufficient by itself; each particular claim needs to be supported by at least one reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
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.Quote:
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.
This is what I wrote in What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis:Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
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.
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.Quote:
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:
- Sleep paralysis is neither necessary nor sufficient for WILDing.
- The chances of getting sleep paralysis are determined by your natural predisposition to get it.
- 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.
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.Quote:
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. :(
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.Quote:
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.
Your assertions that these things are not coincidences prove nothing whatsoever.Quote:
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".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
You've latched onto a single quote and are selling it out of context.
Here are the other related quotes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
Or did you just choose to ignore them.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
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.
Says you. A lot of Science is based on observation Thor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
So you keep saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Yet the scientists are quite clear. They are not differentiating between muscle atonia in REM or NREM.
They are measuring the same thing.
The scientists disagree:-:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Come on thor, are you unable to comprehend simple sentences?Quote:
In view of the U-shaped distribution of MAN (atonia) episodes it is unlikely that they are analogous events.
Yet again, says you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
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:D
In earlier posts, I said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
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:
- Sleep paralysis is neither necessary nor sufficient for WILDing.
- The chances of getting sleep paralysis are determined by your natural predisposition to get it.
- 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.I quoted all the preceding paragraphs in your post, in order to show very clearly that this quote was not taken out of context.
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".
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:
- You are an illiterate, unable to comprehend the meaning of simple sentences.
- 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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
And this epic thesis proves you're not engaging in dickish pedantry.....how exactly? :lol:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
So just answer the question, moonshine: Are you an illiterate or a liar?
yawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
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....
Yeah I have to admit, "Debates" like this with Thor usually end up Phyrric victories at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
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.
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. The scientific method is not about proving a point. Any decent scientist is happy to admit their hypothesis is wrong, because it means they have learned something new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Your tirade only proves my point even more. You seem to be more concerned with your own ego than with any productive discussion.
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.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot_Butler
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.Quote:
The scientific method is not about proving a point.
That is entirely correct, and believe it or not: I couldn't care less about being "right" about these things. As I wrote:Quote:
Any decent scientist is happy to admit their hypothesis is wrong, because it means they have learned something new.
So my position on this subject can be summed up as follows:
- Sleep paralysis is neither necessary nor sufficient for WILDing.
- The chances of getting sleep paralysis are determined by your natural predisposition to get it.
- 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.
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.Quote:
You seem to be more concerned with your own ego than with any productive discussion.
"Wah wah wah. Moonshine started it!" Good grief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
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.
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. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Thor
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.
In case you missed it........Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/re...466.2001v1.pdf
And again:Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
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."Quote:
If you want an complete list of references, buy the book :D
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.Quote:
Oh rly? Well speaking of made up arguments, weren't you actually the one who brought up previous discussions.
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.Quote:
:roll: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 :
I am curious to investigate this.Quote:
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.
[quote]
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
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.
~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
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.
~
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Not really. I've deliberately avoiding retyping numerous pages of related scientific references, for what I would hope are obvious reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Well that's the 'Net for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Good to have you on board.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
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.Quote:
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 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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Well that's the 'Net for you.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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!"Quote:
For example http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...2&postcount=50 which was essentially a pretentious argument about how to argue.
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."Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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?
~
Alrighty then.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
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
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
In view of the U-shaped distribution of MAN (Muscle Atonia in NREM) episodes it is unlikely that they are analogous events.
I agree, these are good points that Thor does need to support.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshine
What were the references aside from DV itself...? Hopefully more than just book naming.Quote:
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.
Right, I think this is agreed upon with everyone, no..?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Good points Moonshine, I look forward to Thor's response.
~
Just so that, if EWOLD is discussed, everyone knows what it says in EWOLD:
Quote:
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)
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.Quote:
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)
*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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shift
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.
In the tutorials thereafter Laberge states:Quote:
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.
There seems to be little doubt.Quote:
Watch for signs of strange sensations, vibrations, and distortions of your body image. These are the harbringers of REM sleep paralysis.
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.
Sorry, I got distracted responding to your other post. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I would suggest that the "REM" in "REM Ationa" is no longer sufficent evidence.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
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 : / )
From what I can gather its not neccesary. Certainly if you focus on other aspects you may not even notice it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yume.no.ato
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.
Sorry to hear that. Yeah I'll bet its not much fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yume.no.ato
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yume.no.ato
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
No, that is REM atonia. You are confusing the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepingdog
Also, hallucinations =/= sleep paralysis.
But as noted, we're simply using the term in the way laberge does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shift
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
Quote:
Isolated sleep paralysis is a type of paralysis associated with a sleep disorder.
So "sleep paralysis" is simply the paralysis of the body.Quote:
Sleep paralysis is the inability to perform voluntary muscle movements during sleep.
"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?
You know the weird sounds we hear inside our heads when we're in SP? For me it always sounded like an electronic scream that went louder and louder until it physically hurt me. But more recently the SPs I experience between dreams are much softer and instead of the loud screechy screams, I get to listen to what seems to be radio broadcasts. One time I got a Bollywood radio station playing some songs, some other time I got to hear a transmission with some guy speaking in english and clearly from the 1940/50's.
It was weird and it made me think that maybe the weird electronic-like sounds we hear are actual radio transmissions out there in the air, that our mind is tuning in accidentally, but whenever the frequency is not totally right on our mind-receiver, we just hear noise.
I know it sounds crazy, but it also sounds cool :fro: