It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Brighter
looks like a duck
walks like a duck
quacks like a duck
swims like a duck
water rolls off its back like a duck
You're welcome to call it a Pterodactyl if you want, remain objectively neutral, or any other stance you've ivory towered, but, I'm calling it a duck.
Originally posted by Brighter
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by The Magicians Apprentice
What you describe is typical Sleep Paralysis.
You can read my own experience with sleep paralysis HERE among feedback from others.
You can also ATS search "sleep paralysis" and find a number of accounts describing seeing 'beings', or feeling a presence.
The buzzing, paralysis, and fear are very common elements to sleep paralysis.
Additionally, there's this interesting paper you may want to read:
Transcultural Psychiatry - Sleep Paralysis, Sexual Abuse, and Space Alien Abduction
You can, of course, ignore the body of material that's examined this phenomenon in favor of a more magical explanation, but, to each their own.
It's a pretty elementary error to assume that, because a phenomena has been given a convenient moniker ("Sleep Paralysis") and simply defined as a list of symptoms, that this suffices as a satisfying explanation. A similar error occurs when you dismiss an explanation out of hand by simply placing the word "magical" next to it. What these tactics do, rather than elucidate a phenomenon, is to subtly obscure it by an appeal to authority.
It's also an error to assume that, because an experience can be induced in a laboratory, that the experience is of something imaginary. The implicit logical move here is that what is subjectively experienced is non-real. And that's a pretty hefty assumption that I'm willing to bet that you have no justification for. It is, however, perfectly justifiable within a purely materialist framework, as this framework conveniently assumes this.
In either one of those cases, you haven't come close to explaining the non-reality of the beings that were experienced in those situations, but these confused thoughts actually elucidate some common fundamental assumptions that people make as they think through these issues.
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Brighter
Hmmm. That's fine and all.
Your effort to muddy the waters is commendable.
However, as observed, reported, and experienced historically, as well as contemporarily under controlled monitored conditions;
looks like a duck
walks like a duck
quacks like a duck
swims like a duck
water rolls off its back like a duck
You're welcome to call it a Pterodactyl if you want, remain objectively neutral, or any other stance you've ivory towered, but, I'm calling it a duck.
Originally posted by Brighter
Well that's simply a false analogy, as last I checked we were all pretty clear on what a duck is, whereas it's far from clear what is taking place in these experiences.
And I'm not sure how I 'muddied the waters'. I just tried to show how your explanation was incomplete as it made some enormous assumptions that you never justified. And I'm pretty sure that said explanations more accurately qualify as muddying the waters, as they attempt to hide from view some really important basic assumptions.
In general, your post was just a terse explanation that ended by belittling this person's interpretation of their experience (by calling it a "magical" explanation). When someone opens up like this, I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd please refrain from the derogatory remarks.
Originally posted by Bilky
I have had the same thing happen to me but at the time I could feel that the fear was being projected from the being almost like an electric current. I came to the conclusion that it is the fear itself that they want or rather the bi product of fear. It is an extraction procedure. We have resources that we need and so do they.
Originally posted by Brighter
In general, your post was just a terse explanation that ended by belittling this person's interpretation of their experience (by calling it a "magical" explanation). When someone opens up like this, I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd please refrain from the derogatory remarks.
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by The Magicians Apprentice
What you describe is typical Sleep Paralysis.
You can read my own experience with sleep paralysis HERE among feedback from others.
You can also ATS search "sleep paralysis" and find a number of accounts describing seeing 'beings', or feeling a presence.
The buzzing, paralysis, and fear are very common elements to sleep paralysis.
Additionally, there's this interesting paper you may want to read:
Transcultural Psychiatry - Sleep Paralysis, Sexual Abuse, and Space Alien Abduction
You can, of course, ignore the body of material that's examined this phenomenon in favor of a more magical explanation, but, to each their own.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Originally posted by Brighter
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by The Magicians Apprentice
What you describe is typical Sleep Paralysis.
You can read my own experience with sleep paralysis HERE among feedback from others.
You can also ATS search "sleep paralysis" and find a number of accounts describing seeing 'beings', or feeling a presence.
The buzzing, paralysis, and fear are very common elements to sleep paralysis.
Additionally, there's this interesting paper you may want to read:
Transcultural Psychiatry - Sleep Paralysis, Sexual Abuse, and Space Alien Abduction
You can, of course, ignore the body of material that's examined this phenomenon in favor of a more magical explanation, but, to each their own.
It's a pretty elementary error to assume that, because a phenomena has been given a convenient moniker ("Sleep Paralysis") and simply defined as a list of symptoms, that this suffices as a satisfying explanation. A similar error occurs when you dismiss an explanation out of hand by simply placing the word "magical" next to it. What these tactics do, rather than elucidate a phenomenon, is to subtly obscure it by an appeal to authority.
It's also an error to assume that, because an experience can be induced in a laboratory, that the experience is of something imaginary. The implicit logical move here is that what is subjectively experienced is non-real. And that's a pretty hefty assumption that I'm willing to bet that you have no justification for. It is, however, perfectly justifiable within a purely materialist framework, as this framework conveniently assumes this.
In either one of those cases, you haven't come close to explaining the non-reality of the beings that were experienced in those situations, but these confused thoughts actually elucidate some common fundamental assumptions that people make as they think through these issues.
How is this an "elementary error" to assume Sleep Paralysis as a good possiblity when the entire happening was within the time frame of sleeping? Given the description, what's an equally plausible answer? Actual visitation by an alien being? Slipping into the 4th+ dimension?
I can have dreams in which I awake and remember exact details of a person or being in that dream. So, that in itself doesn't give a good argument for something real.
Originally posted by Brighter
Druscilla's explanation implied that, because there exists a condition called "Sleep Paralysis", that that is sufficient to prove that the experience is entirely imaginary. Yet isn't there a huge assumption here? The assumption being that what one subjectively experiences under certain conditions are entirely imaginary. In other words, the move is from subjective -> imaginary. And this and its justification is precisely what is at issue here, and it's also precisely what Druscilla's sleep paralysis explanation does not provide and simply assumes an answer for. You've simply assumed what you were trying to prove. Clear enough? There's no logical 'magic' going on here, just a reasonable request for an actual, non-circular argument as opposed to an unjustified proclamation, which is all the 'sleep paralysis' explanation is. Sure, conventional explanations like this make one feel nice and comfortable, but on the simplest examination they fail, and fail at the most critical point. The problem is that you're trying to make sleep paralysis do too much work - work it wasn't intended to do. You're trying to leverage a 10,000 lb. underlying philosophical assumption with a superficial 2 oz. explanation.
Originally posted by Brighter
Druscilla's explanation implied that, because there exists a condition called "Sleep Paralysis", that that is sufficient to prove that the experience is entirely imaginary. Yet isn't there a huge assumption here? The assumption being that what one subjectively experiences under certain conditions are entirely imaginary. In other words, the move is from subjective -> imaginary. And this and its justification is precisely what is at issue here, and it's also precisely what Druscilla's sleep paralysis explanation does not provide and simply assumes an answer for. You've simply assumed what you were trying to prove. Clear enough? There's no logical 'magic' going on here, just a reasonable request for an actual, non-circular argument as opposed to an unjustified proclamation, which is all the 'sleep paralysis' explanation is. Sure, conventional explanations like this make one feel nice and comfortable, but on the simplest examination they fail, and fail at the most critical point. The problem is that you're trying to make sleep paralysis do too much work - work it wasn't intended to do. You're trying to leverage a 10,000 lb. underlying philosophical assumption with a superficial 2 oz. explanation.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
It's clear enough by your postings in general, that there are some underlying issues.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
While I would agree you can't put a definitive answer to what happened, you also can't write off so easily a reasonable explanation or suggestion. Especially when "The Magicians Apprentice" is telling a story with the entire context being sleep.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
You of course didn't answer my question... What other equally plausible explanation would you put to this story? Surely you won't suggest it's an actual real event. He/she was visited by an alien being. No proof in that ever happening, at any time, with any person. In your own mind, you've effectively eliminated the sleep paralysis explanation, or at least given a good argument for yourself. I'm curious to know what explanation(s) you could put to this event. Suggestions.... or not?
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by The Magicians Apprentice
What you describe is typical Sleep Paralysis.
You can read my own experience with sleep paralysis HERE among feedback from others.
You can also ATS search "sleep paralysis" and find a number of accounts describing seeing 'beings', or feeling a presence.
The buzzing, paralysis, and fear are very common elements to sleep paralysis.
Additionally, there's this interesting paper you may want to read:
Transcultural Psychiatry - Sleep Paralysis, Sexual Abuse, and Space Alien Abduction
You can, of course, ignore the body of material that's examined this phenomenon in favor of a more magical explanation, but, to each their own.
Originally posted by Jauk3
reply to post by The Magicians Apprentice
Did the being look any like me avatar?
I've heard that they use fear, I don't know why, but they seem to be really good at it.
Maybe they don't want to use fear, but the fear is your own reaction at seeing the being.
Have you ever talked to one of these beings? I mean telepathically?
Honestly I do not think they have evil intentions. Maybe they are testing you? to see if you can handle them?
Did the being look any like me avatar?
Have you ever talked to one of these beings? I mean telepathically?
Honestly I do not think they have evil intentions.
Originally posted by Brighter
Actually, the real issue is that you're incapable of providing any kind of rational justification for your beliefs. I realize that that's frustrating to come to terms with, but there's no need to lash out with ad hominem attacks. Everyone has to come to terms with this kind of thing eventually, some just weather it more gracefully than others.
In the end, it's pretty clear to anyone that you don't have a rational response to my objection. It's really not a difficult concept at all to grasp, so one can only assume that it's due to a psychological block, as you appear to be heavily invested in the canned explanations of 'popular skepticism'. And as with most consumers, they don't really understand how the product works - they just consume it.
But it's not a reasonable explanation, and that's exactly what I've been describing in some very unambiguous terms. What it is is a superficial explanation that doesn't carry the conceptual leverage to demonstrate that what is being experienced is not real.
This is because you haven't moved the conversation forward. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how your proposed sleep apnea explanation possesses the necessary conceptual apparatus to prove that what is subjectively experienced is not real. And if it doesn't, we'd all appreciate an independent argument for why this is so. You're the one claiming that it's a sufficient explanation. So prove it.
And try to avoid moving the the goal posts by saying something like: "But the opposite explanation isn't plausible." I'm asking you to independently defend your explanation, and this should be simple, as you seem to have an enormous amount of confidence in it. So the floor's all yours.
Originally posted by homeslice
1:11?
Cool story bro.