Sleep paralysis can lead to ghost sightings

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

depends what it is.. would you reasonably consider fairies? Or this as being real maybe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZI6tBFGjTk

I believe in etheric beings but think that guy is just having fun with this and his computer-generated images. 

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I believe in etheric beings but think that guy is just having fun with this and his computer-generated images. 

no, it's real

[the13bats]

41 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

But bats, I am not claiming proof but interest in 'what's most reasonable to believe'. Things that can't be proved should be reasonably considered.

Thats where you allow fantasy and ego to think for you and fail its not at all reasonable but rather very credulous to "believe" in unproven explanations with no supportive evidence before accepting things like hallucination which are proven explanations countless times.

You want to claim is "paranormal" then present evidence to support that not another story which proves nothing.

 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

But bats, I am not claiming proof but interest in 'what's most reasonable to believe'.

Where is the 'reason' part, that's ultimately the question?  Anybody can say 'I believe it because I've reasonably considered it', that doesn't mean much.  There are many things that can't be proven but you seem to take the approach that if it's not proven then any answer we can dream up is as good as any other; I would argue that approach is at the very least not 'reasonably considered'. There's a downed utility pole in the neighborhood.  I can't prove why it's down, maybe it's because of the wind or maybe because a vehicle hit it or maybe some other reason, but just because I can't prove one of those other explanations it doesn't make the idea that Bigfoot pushed it down 'reasonable to believe' just because there is no 'proof'.

Basing it on your religious beliefs and wisdom traditions and especially the 'large bodies of claims' to me actually hurts your basis; if the claims are really that numerous and the traditions so ancient then we need to reasonably consider why there isn't any good evidence after all this time and quantity, it suggests that it doesn't exist at all.  That is a reasonable explanation, correct?  An 'astral' world that people supposedly can connect with potentially would be easy to provide some decent evidence for, if it was real.  And in this case we unfortunately mirror some of the same issues you have with the Mandela Effect, namely your assumptions about the reliability of perception and the brain which experts do not seem to support.

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Where is the 'reason' part, that's ultimately the question?  Anybody can say 'I believe it because I've reasonably considered it', that doesn't mean much.  There are many things that can't be proven but you seem to take the approach that if it's not proven then any answer we can dream up is as good as any other; I would argue that approach is at the very least not 'reasonably considered'. There's a downed utility pole in the neighborhood.  I can't prove why it's down, maybe it's because of the wind or maybe because a vehicle hit it or maybe some other reason, but just because I can't prove one of those other explanations it doesn't make the idea that Bigfoot pushed it down 'reasonable to believe' just because there is no 'proof'.

 

All we have is our best reasoning. And what I reason is very important to me. To me the evidence for the paranormal is overwhelming to the point of essentially being a certainty. Not sure how to present a few thousand things in any reply post. And I would start a downed utility pole cause reasoning myself with the most likely with wind and accident. Without testimony, Bigfoot would be essentially zero chance to me. That's how my reasoning skills work.

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

Basing it on your religious beliefs and wisdom traditions and especially the 'large bodies of claims' to me actually hurts your basis; if the claims are really that numerous and the traditions so ancient then we need to reasonably consider why there isn't any good evidence after all this time and quantity, it suggests that it doesn't exist at all.  That is a reasonable explanation, correct?  An 'astral' world that people supposedly can connect with potentially would be easy to provide some decent evidence for, if it was real.  And in this case we unfortunately mirror some of the same issues you have with the Mandela Effect, namely your assumptions about the reliability of perception and the brain which experts do not seem to support.

Well, I claim there is good evidence in a few thousand pieces I don't know how to present in a reply post. And any spiritual/religious/paranormal beliefs I hold come from following the evidence and best reasoning. We can disagree about them one at a time but that's where it will end.

 

[Bed of chaos]

I don't blame many w sleeping disorders who think its something paranormal or strange. I experienced exploding head syndrome (similar to sleep paralysis) for six months (possibly work related stress/anxiety) and its insanely creepy. After 6 months it never came back. Some believe government conspiracies or energy weapons play into it. I'm not sure about ray guns though I'm convinced (EHS) its some medical condition we dont know about or something in the air (idk possibly an allergy).

Supposedly (ehs wikipedia) some doctors prescribe anti stroke meds for this (guess I can't specifically name here, forum rules). That was one of my symptoms, it felt like numerous quick mini strokes. This will test ur sanity. Anyway, paranormal or not, I hope we get more research and answers in the future. Many cases of sleep paralysis and ehs go unreported.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Bed of chaos

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Not sure how to present a few thousand things in any reply post.

You know that is not necessary, we've covered before how you cannot name any other thing that is true that requires a review of a few thousand examples to make its case.

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, I claim there is good evidence in a few thousand pieces I don't know how to present in a reply post.

But there isn't good evidence in a few?  This is a really weird way of 'reasoning' and arriving at 'certainty' with the exclusion of religious beliefs.

[papageorge1]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You know that is not necessary, we've covered before how you cannot name any other thing that is true that requires a review of a few thousand examples to make its case.

But there isn't good evidence in a few?  This is a really weird way of 'reasoning' and arriving at 'certainty' with the exclusion of religious beliefs.

If you want physical proof of the non-physical then that may be an oxymoron. Don't know what else you are asking for. And I'm not sure what's weird about evaluating a whole bunch of things and forming a coherent worldview from that.

[XenoFish]

Why does there even need to be a spiritual/religious/metaphysical aspect to these types of events anyway? 

All it really shows is just how weird consciousness is. 

[preacherman76]

On 12/28/2022 at 9:33 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

My understanding is that at least as far as sleep paralysis the 'shadow folks' have changed over time.  A long time ago they were little demons or gargoyles that would sit on your chest, and in the 20th century we started hearing that these shadow folks were actually aliens sneaking around.  Funny how these shadow beings are changing in a way that is consistent with what is culturally popular.

There are still little demons and such. I collected many SP stories. Many with shadow folks, many with demons, cats, old hags ect ect. The stories of shadow people go back as long this has been recognized. Just because people want to now call them aliens, doesn’t mean they have changed. Just means some peoples perception of them has. Stepping back and looking at the big picture, nothing has changed. 

On 12/28/2022 at 9:33 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't know what basis there is for this, the dreaming mind across people have remarkable consistencies.  There are many lists of common dreams on the web:

• Falling
• Teeth falling out
• At work or class naked
• Test taking 
• Dying
• Being chased
• Partner cheating
• Showing up late
• Flying
• Driving an out of control vehicle

I've had probably half of those myself. 
 

Indeed. And the list gets much larger than that. That’s kinda my point. We dream of many things. Many similar, many unique. There is a very wide category of possible dreams. Far as the eye can see. With SP, not so much. Regardless of the type of entity, there are very common themes that don’t often stray to far from the premise. If this was a dream you’d think anything could happen. But no. It’s always negative. For those who actually see an entity it’s always scary not just by sight but by action. Depending how far it progresses, said entity usually performs some type of attack. These fall into a couple different categories, but very limited and absolutely violent, and either of a sexual nature, or of an air restricting attack like choking or sitting on your chest. SP if a dream doesn’t play by the same rules as regular dreaming, and the unlimited possibilities there of. 

On 12/28/2022 at 9:33 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

Depends on which part you are talking about, it's not a guess that there are brain functions that disable your motor functions while you are dreaming so you don't thrash around in response to dream activities.  Why there is the sense of some other being present I'm not as sure about, but for many sleep paralysis can be a scary experience and when it occurs the brain has not fully awoken so hallucinations don't seem to be that surprising.

Yes, that’s the one part that is certain. The brain definitely holds the body still, for the most part while in deep sleep. After that, the science pretty much comes to the same conclusion you have, that it isn’t surprising that people see the same types of entities. That it isn’t surprising that they suffer the same types of attacks. This regardless of not knowing why, or how it happens. Dismissive really. 
 

Well, without having a solid scientific explanation for the whole experience like they do for why people are paralyzed when it starts, then I beg to differ. The parts of the brain that are active during these attacks don’t come from the parts where dreams come from. It comes from the same place where fully awake reality does. Also, if a dream, the possibilities of a never ending stream of dream characters could come into play. But they don’t. While there have been many types of entities seen during SP, they still all fall under a very small handful of categories. 
 

It’s easy enough to say it just makes sense. But that isn’t a scientific explanation. Nor does it appear that with what tools we have now, that the idea is easily provable still to this day. 
 

Now don’t get me wrong, maybe one day they figure it out. Maybe one day they can get to that depth of understanding brain function that they know for a fact the hows and why’s. I don’t have any beliefs when it comes to Sleep paralysis. I’m just not satisfied with “most likely” explanations when patterns just seem to be to tight to be properly explained by maybe’s. 

[preacherman76]

On 12/28/2022 at 5:43 AM, XenoFish said:

Not really. With the volume of shared information it doesn't take much for similar sighting to take place. 

True, but it hasn’t always been that way. It hasn’t been that way for very long at all really. Yet the stories from before that time, are often similar, heck often identical to the stories of today. 

[XenoFish]

42 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

True, but it hasn’t always been that way. It hasn’t been that way for very long at all really. Yet the stories from before that time, are often similar, heck often identical to the stories of today. 

As far as I can tell most people have the same hardware in their heads. So stories probably won't be that different.

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

As far as I can tell most people have the same hardware in their heads. So stories probably won't be that different.

Perhaps. Or maybe the stories aren’t that different, because they are experiencing the same, external thing. 

[XenoFish]

52 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Perhaps. Or maybe the stories aren’t that different, because they are experiencing the same, external thing. 

Sure, okay.

[the13bats]

On 12/30/2022 at 11:34 AM, papageorge1 said:

All we have is our best reasoning. And what I reason is very important to me. To me the evidence for the paranormal is overwhelming to the point of essentially being a certainty. Not sure how to present a few thousand things in any reply post. And I would start a downed utility pole cause reasoning myself with the most likely with wind and accident. Without testimony, Bigfoot would be essentially zero chance to me. That's how my reasoning skills work.

Well, I claim there is good evidence in a few thousand pieces I don't know how to present in a reply post. And any spiritual/religious/paranormal beliefs I hold come from following the evidence and best reasoning. We can disagree about them one at a time but that's where it will end.

 

You make a claim paranormal is a certainty to you because of evidence yet you can not ever share any of that evidence and no, stories are not evidence. So admit you base your belief on stories.

You are fibbing, If a person came in and told a story like this...

I live in the country and went into my yard this morning and a utility pole was down there was no wind no traffic and a neighbor said it might be bigfoot we all know your silly papaG meter would ping high on it being BF sure you will deny that but you have proven that about yourself countless times.

[the13bats]

On 12/31/2022 at 2:01 PM, preacherman76 said:

Perhaps. Or maybe the stories aren’t that different, because they are experiencing the same, internal thing. 

Fixed.

[the13bats]

On 12/30/2022 at 9:53 PM, papageorge1 said:

If you want physical proof of the non-physical then that may be an oxymoron. Don't know what else you are asking for. And I'm not sure what's weird about evaluating a whole bunch of things and forming a coherent worldview from that.

We do have proof of many non physical things or at least things i find non physical.

Why is it you cant just admit that your belief is based on belief itself not any proof, does it make your ego hurt or something its ok religions are based on faith.

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 12/31/2022 at 11:28 AM, preacherman76 said:

Indeed. And the list gets much larger than that. That’s kinda my point. We dream of many things. Many similar, many unique. There is a very wide category of possible dreams. Far as the eye can see. With SP, not so much.

Okay, but obviously SP experiences are probably at least a million-fold less prevalent as dreams, and SP experiences are obviously not just dreams, people aren't in full REM sleep when they have SPs.  Your original point was that there were too many sightings of specific shadow folks to be a coincidence, as if the loose semi-commonality in SPs is indicative of there being possibly real shadow creatures.  But that implies that you are expecting these experiences to just be totally random ("experiences should be all over the place").  That doesn't make any sense to me, I don't know what basis you think there is that this should be totally random.  There are commonalities in epileptic seizures and acid trips too, that doesn't mean those experiences reflect reality accurately.

That's why I'm mentioning common dreams.  If the experiences should be all over the place why aren't they, why do not only different people have the same dreams but the same people have roughly the same dream multiple times?  What are the odds of that commonality if dream experiences should be totally random?  If you think that hypnogogic/hypnopompic/sleep paralysis hallucinations of shadow people are too much of a coincidence than why doesn't that apply to common dreams?  I can't count how many times I've had the teeth falling out, naked test taking, and out of control vehicle dreams, it seems that those should be even more unexplained coincidences and thus you should suspect they are even more likely to be something that is really happening?

On 12/31/2022 at 11:28 AM, preacherman76 said:

Regardless of the type of entity, there are very common themes that don’t often stray to far from the premise. If this was a dream you’d think anything could happen. But no. It’s always negative. For those who actually see an entity it’s always scary not just by sight but by action.

False, it is not always negative, nor do all SPs involve shadow creatures.  I've had several SP experiences, I've never had the feeling of anything on my chest but have had the fearsome presence experience, although I didn't see it. Now though when I have SP I don't have any fear, it's just an annoyance while I try to do something to wake my body up.  That seems to follow a pattern across all paranormal critters:  it's amazing how safe you are from them if you simply don't believe in them.  Your 'shadow creatures' commonality seems kinda stretched too, cats are different than aliens and demons typically.  The wiki entry on 'SP' has an interesting mention of the possible role of the 'threat-activated vigilance system' which seems like a possible explanation for these creatures.

As far as your view that science is 'guessing' as to the cause of these though I'm not sure what you are expecting.  They don't really 'know' why people have common teeth-falling-out dreams either, but link it to people's concerns about their health and aging.  That fear could manifest in many different ways as far as dream experience so they are I suppose 'guessing' as to why it takes this specific dream form.  But we don't typically take the fact that this is only a guess and say then that anything goes and that maybe we are really losing our teeth in some other parallel realm/universe or whatever; there are good guesses and bad guesses.

[papageorge1]

7 hours ago, the13bats said:

You make a claim paranormal is a certainty to you because of evidence yet you can not ever share any of that evidence and no, stories are not evidence. So admit you base your belief on stories.

You are fibbing, If a person came in and told a story like this...

I live in the country and went into my yard this morning and a utility pole was down there was no wind no traffic and a neighbor said it might be bigfoot we all know your silly papaG meter would ping high on it being BF sure you will deny that but you have proven that about yourself countless times.

The neighbor would have to have claimed to have seen a posible Bigfoot prior to the incident to impress the Papameter.

[papageorge1]

7 hours ago, the13bats said:

We do have proof of many non physical things or at least things i find non physical.

Why is it you cant just admit that your belief is based on belief itself not any proof, does it make your ego hurt or something its ok religions are based on faith.

My beliefs are based on following the data and not 'faith'. Why would I believe something the data doesn't support. Do you think I'm batty? 

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 12/30/2022 at 9:53 PM, papageorge1 said:

If you want physical proof of the non-physical then that may be an oxymoron. Don't know what else you are asking for. 

I understand you are talking with others concerning 'proof' and are maybe mixing up convos, but I never impose that standard on you, mainly because you imply I'm asking for 'proof' in almost every conversation we have despite my almost never mentioning it, it's like it's on a list of pre-made evasive replies or something. 

As far as what I'm asking about, it is this statement: "I claim there is good evidence in a few thousand pieces". I'm taking this literally, it obviously, objectively, does not mean you are claiming there are a few thousand pieces of good evidence because there clearly are not, I actually don't know of one piece of good evidence for the paranormal.  'Good' evidence is convincing to larger numbers of 'people' and to experts, not just based on papa's opinion, and you don't need thousands of pieces of it.  That's why I'm asking about what other truth requires a review of thousands of pieces of evidence in that at some point the accumulation of all those thousands becomes in mass 'good evidence'.  I haven't heard of this methodology, but maybe there are examples that I'm overlooking.  I've taken a decent amount of classes and never has a subject been introduced by the prof saying that to understand the truth of any of it requires such a large review.  On the contrary, real things usually have some basic good evidence and examples that suggest the truth, the evolutionary explanation for 'Darwin's finches' for example.  So is the paranormal the only subject whose good evidence only emerges from a review of thousands of pieces?  Especially when the vast majority of the 'pieces' in this case are actually better termed, from your and my vantage point, 'stories'?

On 12/30/2022 at 9:53 PM, papageorge1 said:

And I'm not sure what's weird about evaluating a whole bunch of things and forming a coherent worldview from that.

Coherence is not really an achievement or relevant, most good fiction writers do that regularly, both Star Trek and -Wars are coherent and fictional.  Even the Marvel comics universe is coherent, despite in some comics Spider Man is a super-hero crimefighter and in others he's a zombie.  To address this they have a multiverse and that of course makes everything coherent, because just like your religious/astral beliefs there is almost nothing that can even in theory ever be inconsistent with it.  If you are wrong about physical materialism and there is nothing 'non-physical' in this universe, there is nothing you will ever experience here that can ever be inconsistent with your astral world or whatever beliefs, nor with zombie Spider-Man existing on a different Earth, it all fits and is 'coherent'.

Regardless, you earlier weren't talking about 'coherence' you were talking about 'reasonable' (not to be confused with your or someone's subjective 'reasoning').  Your reasoning is what I mentioned above about an unknown quantity of 'evidence' becoming 'good evidence' at some point, so how does that work and why is it 'reasonable'?  I have no objection to you believing whatever you'd like just like I do for any or no reason, but you occasionally try to slip in more objective statements every now and then ('reasonable', 'science') to try and give your position more credence that to me misrepresent things, especially your basis for your conclusions, and invite replies to see if there is anything to it.

[papageorge1]

39 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I understand you are talking with others concerning 'proof' and are maybe mixing up convos, but I never impose that standard on you, mainly because you imply I'm asking for 'proof' in almost every conversation we have despite my almost never mentioning it, it's like it's on a list of pre-made evasive replies or something. 

As far as what I'm asking about, it is this statement: "I claim there is good evidence in a few thousand pieces". I'm taking this literally, it obviously, objectively, does not mean you are claiming there are a few thousand pieces of good evidence because there clearly are not, I actually don't know of one piece of good evidence for the paranormal.  'Good' evidence is convincing to larger numbers of 'people' and to experts, not just based on papa's opinion, and you don't need thousands of pieces of it.  That's why I'm asking about what other truth requires a review of thousands of pieces of evidence in that at some point the accumulation of all those thousands becomes in mass 'good evidence'.  I haven't heard of this methodology, but maybe there are examples that I'm overlooking.  I've taken a decent amount of classes and never has a subject been introduced by the prof saying that to understand the truth of any of it requires such a large review.  On the contrary, real things usually have some basic good evidence and examples that suggest the truth, the evolutionary explanation for 'Darwin's finches' for example.  So is the paranormal the only subject whose good evidence only emerges from a review of thousands of pieces?  Especially when the vast majority of the 'pieces' in this case are actually better termed, from your and my vantage point, 'stories'?

Coherence is not really an achievement or relevant, most good fiction writers do that regularly, both Star Trek and -Wars are coherent and fictional.  Even the Marvel comics universe is coherent, despite in some comics Spider Man is a super-hero crimefighter and in others he's a zombie.  To address this they have a multiverse and that of course makes everything coherent, because just like your religious/astral beliefs there is almost nothing that can even in theory ever be inconsistent with it.  If you are wrong about physical materialism and there is nothing 'non-physical' in this universe, there is nothing you will ever experience here that can ever be inconsistent with your astral world or whatever beliefs, nor with zombie Spider-Man existing on a different Earth, it all fits and is 'coherent'.

Regardless, you earlier weren't talking about 'coherence' you were talking about 'reasonable' (not to be confused with your or someone's subjective 'reasoning').  Your reasoning is what I mentioned above about an unknown quantity of 'evidence' becoming 'good evidence' at some point, so how does that work and why is it 'reasonable'?  I have no objection to you believing whatever you'd like just like I do for any or no reason, but you occasionally try to slip in more objective statements every now and then ('reasonable', 'science') to try and give your position more credence that to me misrepresent things, especially your basis for your conclusions, and invite replies to see if there is anything to it.

Human reasoning allows us to do an 'all things considered' judgment and hence form an opinion in the face of something not proved or disproved through the physical senses. That's valid thinking, isn't it?  Not understanding why this should even be controversial thinking skills and methodology.

Sorry, if my response seems short but that is the heart of what I'm saying.  

Edit: I don't think this analogy is perfect but how do we decide who is the best basketball player of all time? It's an 'all things considered' judgment by each person that has spent reasonably significant time considering this issue.

Edited January 2, 2023 by papageorge1

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Human reasoning allows us to do an 'all things considered' judgment and hence form an opinion in the face of something not proved or disproved through the physical senses. That's valid thinking, isn't it?  Not understanding why this should even be controversial thinking skills and methodology.

Then simply provide an analogy to another true subject where 'good evidence' emerges only from thousands of pieces if this is so obvious and non-controversial.  Again, judgment and opinions may or may not have anything to do with reason.  The reason you think particular things like sleep paralysis and the mandela effect, et al, involve astral things is because you think astral things exist; you seem to think astral things exist based on the 'evidence' of people's experiences with the sleep paralysis and the ME, et al.  Isn't that a circular argument?  Are circular arguments reasonable?

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't think this analogy is perfect but how do we decide who is the best basketball player of all time? It's an 'all things considered' judgment by each person that has spent reasonably significant time considering this issue.

It's a mostly subjective evaluation, depends on what stats you favor for 'best'.  Theoretically there could be a player that was top in every possible stat and then I guess more objectively you'd have to call them the best player, but it's usually not so clear cut, and there's no question whether those players actually exist which separates this from the paranormal.  There is reason involved but its also somewhat a matter of taste, like what the best ice cream is.  I'm pretty sure you're not believing the paranormal to be true as a matter of taste though.

Let me put it this way, where exactly am I being unreasonable in my analysis of sleep paralysis or anything we disagree on?  I survey the evidence and come to the tentative conclusion that there is no good evidence for anything paranormal and you look at the same stuff and think it is overwhelming.  Am I not being reasonable, or are we both being reasonable?  Possible I guess, but I can and have pointed out where your argument basis is questionable, namely that you are largely believing the interpretation of stories that you can in no way verify, and cannot name any other clear truths that are supported by mere anecdote.  So what are the flaws in reason in my approach?  It is not that I have not surveyed your list of thousands of pieces, it is very likely that were I to review these pieces I would not think it is overwhelming for the paranormal, it's reasonable to assume many people already have done that survey and still don't believe.

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Then simply provide an analogy to another true subject where 'good evidence' emerges only from thousands of pieces if this is so obvious and non-controversial. 

Perhaps better than the greatest basketball player analogy is a courtroom analogy. Let's say a murder trial  where an accumulation of evidence can make one judge 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'. 

9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

It's a mostly subjective evaluation, depends on what stats you favor for 'best'.  Theoretically there could be a player that was top in every possible stat and then I guess more objectively you'd have to call them the best player, but it's usually not so clear cut, and there's no question whether those players actually exist which separates this from the paranormal.  There is reason involved but its also somewhat a matter of taste, like what the best ice cream is.  I'm pretty sure you're not believing the paranormal to be true as a matter of taste though.

Let me put it this way, where exactly am I being unreasonable in my analysis of sleep paralysis or anything we disagree on?  I survey the evidence and come to the tentative conclusion that there is no good evidence for anything paranormal and you look at the same stuff and think it is overwhelming.  Am I not being reasonable, or are we both being reasonable?  Possible I guess, but I can and have pointed out where your argument basis is questionable, namely that you are largely believing the interpretation of stories that you can in no way verify, and cannot name any other clear truths that are supported by mere anecdote.  So what are the flaws in reason in my approach?  It is not that I have not surveyed your list of thousands of pieces, it is very likely that were I to review these pieces I would not think it is overwhelming for the paranormal, it's reasonable to assume many people already have done that survey and still don't believe.

As far as the paranormal and related things go, I think you have an unreasonable sweep away of evidence that certainly doesn't seem to fit the materialist view citing things like lying and mental perception errors to an unreasonable extent given my experience with myself and humanity. After a few thousand cases (extrapolated to millions certainly) the non-believer's trial argument eventually approaches zero likelihood. Any compelling case I bring up I'm sure can get argued into infinity, but the chances of every case being a materialist explanation rapidly approaches zero.

The existence of the paranormal is on trial. And after that a trial on those claiming additional super-physical insight into the nature of these phenomena as giving us a direction on what is going on.

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Any compelling case I bring up I'm sure can get argued into infinity

That is all that should ever need to be discussed, compelling cases, just like topics about real things.  You rarely do though, we have seriously talked about everything else around it.  Are there any compelling cases that people with sleep paralysis have really been visited by other creatures?  I'll just throw out argument-wise that if it can be argued to infinity then by definition it is not 'compelling', but set that standard aside, let's be more loose and take advantage of what you have surveyed.  What's the most compelling 'shadow figure' case sleep paralysis wise?  Given what you say I'll grant that you may at least be an expert on the details of supernatural claims, you definitely are way ahead of me, so it'd be good to hear what the very best and most convincing are considered to be.