DrmDoc

How do you feel about this year's recipient of the prize, Bob Dylan? Deserved and appropriate...or not?

You quoted quite a bit there, but I shall try to be brief. Many researchers believe we dream for reasons associated with memory and better mental acuity. I do not because that is not what the evidence in brain evolution suggests to me. Remarkably, our brain structure contiguously reflects its various stages of evolution. From spinal cord to neocortex, our central nervous system (CNS) functionally suggests how it evolved, as well as, the survival advantages compelling each stage of its functional evolution. What these stages suggest is that brain evolution and function were driven by its metabolic needs. We don't dream for better memory or mental acuity, we dream because of our brain's energy requirements. Conscious mental activity drains the reserve energy (glycogen), which our brain tries to restore by becoming active when our body is at rest in sleep. Dream imagery arise from this brain activity in sleep. There are some who believe that dreams emerge from a part of the mind some call the subconscious. The subconscious, ​in my view, does not exist and is not a part of the mind because it is not a mental state. Both conscious and unconscious are mental states because they can be directly observed as functional states of the brain. Subconscious can only be observed as an influence or by its effects rather than as an actual state of brain activity. Dreams and dreaming emerge from the unconscious active state of brain function. Indeed, there is sufficient evidence that other animals do dream. Since we have moved on from the original subject of this discussion thread, you may want to open a separate thread to continue our discussion of the dreaming brain. I'm sure others here would like to participate as well.

Generally, you have a very good grasp of the subject with additional notes on the following: #2-Perhaps a little more detail regarding the functional nature of the cortex overall and its various lobes. Regarding the function lobe, a bit more regarding executive functions. #6-Actually, stimulants use and prescription are rising as a result of the rise of ADHD (e.g., Adderall). #9-More detail on the disorders of sleep other than sleepwalking.

Perhaps your right, but my books aren't as vulnerable to unscrupulous tampering and malware as I often fear while referencing various websites.

It depends on your specific interests...but there's nothing like or more reliable than a good book in hand. I don't have as much confidence in online publications as I do the texts I hold in hand as reference.

Dreaming is an involved process that even some experts really don't understand very well. I think of the glymphatic system as our brain's janitor who cleans after work hours in preparation for the following work day. The removal of waste enables the intake of nutrients, which our brain cells convert to glycogen. The process is thought to begin with impulses from a brainstem structure called the Pons. That is not my view; however, our brain activates for metabolic reasons and dreaming piggybacks on that process. The imagery and scenarios in our dreams emerge from an unconscious process of brain function. There are many who construe unconscious and subconscious to be synonymous terms. To be precise, they are not synonymous. Unconscious describes a state of brain function while subconscious references an influence emerging from or affecting brain function. In clearer terms, unconscious describes the producer of influence, while subconscious describes how that influence is packaged and delivered. Dreams are how our brain synthesize the subconscious influences emerging from the unconscious metabolic activations our brain engages. Those activations can go beyond those involving our visual field of brain function. How dreams emerge is something I've studied for a number of years and still have few solid answers. I enjoy these discussions as well and I credit much of what I now know and understand to discussions like this. My avatar--yes, it's trippy

There are two primary and overall components of our behavioral expression: External and internal. Psychology explores the external component while neuroscience investigates the internal component of our behaviors. Psychology, as you may know, generally regards mind and behavior, while neuroscience regards their source, which is the brain. Behavioral expression is an ecology in that it's a closed system of actions and interactions, causes and effects, sociological, physiological and neurological influences, which cannot be completely understood without evaluating the primary elements of that closed system. The point of the overlap regards how best to understand behaviors and, thereby, how best to promote healthy behaviors, devise therapies for behavioral aberrations, and create supporting technologies that mimic the mind. If your pursuit of psychology regards an interest in the mind, then your interest necessitates your understanding of the brain and its constituent elements as the neurological machine from which the mind emerges.

I recall that Voynich thread...I understand your frustration. I think that was clearly a case of a person with an extreme obsession over the mental meanderings of a medieval trickster who had a lot of imagination, patience, and nothing but time.

Sleep is as essential as the nutrients we intake for optimum brain function. Insufficient sleep causes an accumulation of extracellular toxins that may contribute to the early onset of neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer. There is also some evidence suggesting our brain doesn't recover from sleep deprivation as quickly as previously thought. As I've learned, every aspect of the sleep process evolved to serve the metabolic needs of brain and body, but particularly the brain. The different stages of sleep serve distinctly different aspects of the brain's metabolic processes. Indeed, brain activity amid REM does routinely exceeds conscious levels particularly in those extrastriate visual areas of the cortex. REM (Rapid Eye Movement), as you may know, is that stage of sleep where dreaming primarily occurs. Dreaming occurs when our brain activates to restore its glycogen reserves. Shrinkage and waste removal occurs during the initial stages of sleep where dreaming does not occur. The glymphatic process actually promotes our brain's ability to uptake energy in sleep. Dreaming is an active unconscious state of brain function that increases circulation to the brain, which brings adenosine triphosphate (ATP) into brain structure for storage and subsequent use. The glymphatic process more efficiently remove the waste byproducts of this energy uptake process in sleep. The imagery and scenarios we recall as dreams upon arousal are actually how our waking brain synthesis or interpret the lingering effects of its mid-sleep activations. The term subconscious isn't an accurate reference for the source of those brain activations because subconscious isn't a state of brain function. There are two states of normal brain function: Conscious and unconscious. Dreaming arises from an unconscious state and, therefore, unconscious is more descriptive of that attribute of mind and brain function from which dreaming arises. If interested, here's a link to prior a discussion on the subject of subconscious vs. unconscious.

I'm curious, is there a particularly frustrating post you'd like to link or submit here as an example for our consideration?

It's not necessarily a reset system but a sanitation system--a means by which brain cells can eliminate waste and prepare for renewed activity. Active brain cells swell as they consumes energy (adenosine triphosphate)--some 20% of the body's total intake while being no more than 5% of body mass--and accumulate waste. As you may know, neural plasticity regards our brain's ability to rewire itself, adapt and/or rebound after trauma. That process is certainly supported by our brain's capacity to efficiently remove cell waste that may cause neurodegeneration. Glymphatic processes essentially explains why sleep is so important to a healthy brain.

As an epilogue to my comments regarding brain size or volume as experience dependent. I failed to mention--that's if you remain interested--what happens to our brain cells when we sleep. Sleep is perhaps the least physically engaging and activity intensive experience influencing brain function. Consequently, recent evidence suggests that our brain cells shrink by as much as 60% whenever we sleep. That shrinkage facilitates the efficient removal of extracellular, interstitial waste through the recently discovered glymphatic system. This system involves the removal of brain cell waste that is not removed when the brain is actively engaged. Essentially, this process infers how a brain's active experiences builds volume that diminishes when the brain disengages experience.

Curious, what political reasoning exactly? There doesn't appear to be anything presidential about Trump, his manner, temperament, or his agenda. I don't like politics or politicians much either but do like Hillary for the stability, maturity, temperament, and competence she portrays and would most likely bring to the presidency. By the way, the Electoral College should have been abolished ages ago. It was instituted on the presumption of an ignorant voting populace but now serves to potentially thwart the majority will of our citizenry as it has done at least twice before in America's history.

It certainly seems like a mental spectrum to me; wherein, there's a presumption of understanding based on a belief that others can intuit meaning from just a few words or singular phrase. The sort of thing I suffered in marriage for transgressions not clearly identified or conveyed by my wife's demeanor. I think it's an infrequently diagnosed condition most people of science suffer as is often suggested by how little patience we sometimes have in explaining complex concepts to the uninitiated.

Again, I believe there remains some misunderstand. There are behaviors that disappear when our brain is damaged and there are behaviors that are altered when the brain is damaged. The behaviors that disappear when the brain is damage suggest an area of the brain where those behaviors originate. Damage to the frontal does not result in the disappearance of our social behaviors but does alter those behaviors considerably, which suggests that the frontal merely mediates those behaviors rather than originate those behaviors. Altered behaviors after frontal damage are mediated by executive functions that primarily originate from the frontal cortex. Damage to the frontal creates a loss of executive functions, critical to the mediation of all our behavioral expressions, which do not completely return. Phineas was never able to hold a position of leadership and responsibility as he had held before his injury and didn't manage to sustain stabile employment until much later in his life which, arguably, was likely a result of his brain plasticity. Perhaps Phineas Gage isn't the best example; however, there is little disagreement on the functional contributions of our frontal cortex. Indeed, you initially introduced both Phineas and the growing frontal lobe to our discussion. No doubt there may be a majority who believes as you do about the predominant hypothesis relative to encephalization and all else is merely superfluous. I continue to hold a different view but have, admittedly, become more informed than prior because of your perspective and our discussion.

Hoffman's theory really isn't a question of neuroscience. According to this subtitle of his paper, Natural Selection Drives True Perception To Swift Extinction, Mr. Hoffman's theory regards evolutionary affects on true perception that are not necessarily neurological in nature. I found no evidence in his paper supporting his theory.

Perhaps you are confused, frontal function adds elements or components to our behaviors that disappear when severely damaged. The frontal also refines elements or components of our behavioral expression. To assess how essential or critical frontal function is to a particular element of our behavioral expression, we merely have to determine whether that element disappears entirely or whether its refinements disappear. Amid the latter (refinements), our affected behavioral elements still exist but are expressed in a coarse and clearly less refine state. The elements that most consistently and persistently disappear from our behaviors when the frontal is damage is our ability to independently problem solve, plan, and conceive the consequential effects of our experiences and behaviors. Those abilities are arguably vital components of our inventive and innovative behaviors. Conversely, frontal damage does not result in the disappearance of our ability to communicate, engage social groups, or engage our sexual interests--actually, our behaviors frequently become less socially inhibited. Clearly, the social elements of our behaviors do not emerge from frontal function as do those elements that make inventiveness and innovation possible. Maybe I have misunderstood; however, my opinion is shaped by a simple view of which likely had the greater impact on group survival--interactions within/among groups or the environment enveloping that group? I believe the environment is the dominant force because it sets the immersive conditions with which a group must contend to survive. Although I accept your certainty, I continue to believe that the social strategies our ancestors adapted would not have evolved without the survival demands of the enveloping conditions compelling those social strategies. By no means is the CVH complete but it seems closest to my view.

Essentially, the idea I support is that "a greater percentage of the Neanderthal brain seems to have been devoted to vision and control of their larger bodies, leaving less mental real estate for higher thinking and social interactions" as suggested by recent research. As I understood, you questioned whether an aspect of my previous comments was a reference to Lamarckism. Simply, it was not. The experiences I was referencing are those engaged directly rather than those pass on as a type of inherited or innate memory. I selected your links and reviewed your comments but could not find supporting evidence where frontal lobe damage inhibits social behaviors. At the very worse, frontal damage alters our social behaviors to something less refined but does not entirely inhibit us from engaging in those behaviors albeit sometimes crude in expression. The effects of lobotomies (ablation of the frontal/prefrontal lobe) provides an example of these personality alterations. I'm not suggesting that innovation isn't a collaborative effort. What I am suggesting is that innovation overall emerges from a need set by survival conditions, which could be a umbrella for a variety of influences both environmental and social.

Everything we are is shaped by the reality of our survival conditions. How we perceive our experiences or what we evolve to be is based on the reality of our physical condition. Mr. Hoffman is theorizing about how we interface or connect with reality. That interface or connection doesn't arise from a calculable natural selection process, in my opinion. I don't believe Mr. Hoffman can use math to predict the outcome for natural selection to produce false perceptions of reality or false interfaces with reality. Natural selection creates perceptions and interfaces base on a real and true reality that can and do change. When a reality change, natural selection must then produce adaptive interfaces to that change.

I could not agree more.

Mr. Hoffman cited the beetle and beer bottle dilemma as a prominent example or evidence of his theory's validity. That type of evidence didn't convince me of his theories primary tenet in that natural selection creates or fosters false perceptions of reality as a convenient or expedient interface with reality. I'm suggesting that his conclusions are wrong for the reasons I gave in my first comments. In my opinion, natural selection creates real perceptions based on true reality when those perceptions first form. When those perceptions fail in the future, like in the beetle example, it is not because their perceptions are wrong or because natural selection skews reality. They fail because something has changed about reality that natural selection must now address. Using the beetle/beer bottle example, natural selection must now select for those male beetles who can perceive the difference between real females and beer bottles because of this beer bottle addition to the beetles reality.

Would that evidence include his initial beetle and beer bottle example, which I addressed in my comments?

It also appears, from prior evidence provided by Arete, that Mrs. Clinton didn't lie in her affidavit to the court requesting a psych eval as Raider5678 claimed in prior posts. It appears that Mrs. Clinton did everything she was supposed to legally do as an officer of the court. Frankly, I don't see an issue here.

Perhaps brain mass related to total body mass was not clearly inferred to you by my comments. I've reviewed my comments and believe I was indeed referring to the larger brain to body mass of Neanderthals relative to our ancestors. No, not inherited experience but experience gained by a preponderance of survival pressures associated with the frontal area of brain function. Indeed, there is a social component in the frontal's functional contribution to our behaviors; however, that component is also technical in nature. Damage to the frontal lobe does not inhibit social behaviors or social elements of our thought process as it does those behaviors and thought processes associated with reasoning, planning, problem solving and host of other mental efforts associated with inventiveness and innovative behaviors. Frontal function refines our social behaviors and social elements of thought. In the case of Phineas Gage, one with which I am very familiar, his behavior is said to gone from one that was reasoned and discipline to one that was frequently inappropriate and prone to emotional outburst. He was able to engage other socially and did form friendships those his personality and disposition appeared to have changed considerably. I should add that the physician who treated Phineas, after that tamping rod virtually destroyed his frontal lobe, never provided a complete or detailed description of exactly how Phineas' behavior changed after the accident. I agree, that CVH is incomplete and requires refinement but it is closest to my view of the forces compelling encephalization. Regarding problem solving, it remains my position that social groups may expound a skill but that skill likely originated from a solitary effort, which would not exist without a need compelled by some survival pressure or need.

Yes, I did. Did I misunderstand Mr. Hoffman's conclusions? Secondly, I'm not sure what you're asking, did I see any evidence there of what exactly?