DrmDoc

Interesting, do you know whether the researchers included a spectrum of ethnicity in their study other than people of lighter skin tone? Did they do a comparative study between people of different ethnic backgrounds such as whether a Caucasian viewed a person of African decent as younger or older? I've found that people of the same ethnicity are more perceptive or discerning of the distinctive or distinguishing qualities between them. Ethnic outsiders, I think, tend to see more similarities than differences and I believe this translates into age perception as well.

You are asking, if I understand correctly, whether it is possible to insert or merge persons (specific or non) into the content of another person's dream amid dreaming given current technologies. The answer is no, it is currently not possible to insert non-sensory types of characters, imagery, or stimuli into dream content while a person is dreaming. I estimate that current technologies for that process will require another 50 years to develop. Currently, it is possible to insert basic sensory stimuli (such as light, sound, thermal, etc.) into dream content, which is proven every time a clock alarm or knock at our bedroom door becomes part of our dream when they occur in our sleep environment. Lucid dream researchers, like Stephen LaBerge, have developed and marketed technologies to induce lucid dreaming using a light source, which dreamers learn to recognize while dreaming as a sleep environment cue to begin lucidity. However, inserting stimuli into a dream is not the same as controlling dream content, which is not possible beyond the state of lucid dreaming and only possible by the dreamer while in that state. Although animal studies have yield some results in deciphering and mapping dream content, transferring that data to another animal would require a measure of understanding we don't possess about how brain function produces a mind. Essentially, overwriting dream content from an outside source is mind control requiring neural restructuring beyond our capabilities--in my opinion.

According to this AP article, the US Army Corps of Engineers have determined that the oldest (8,500 years), most complete human remains ever found in North America are Native American. Discovered near the Columbia River in Kennewick, WA., Kennewick Man has been the center of a custody fight since 1996 between researchers and several Native American tribes claiming his repatriation under the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act. According to some researchers, Kennewick's unique skeletal features suggested a non-Native American ancestry; however, a comparative DNA study by the Northwestern Corps has confirmed that Kennewick is most closely related Native Americans than any other people.

PRINCE...

I think humility is an increasingly rare commodity among smart and not so smart people alike. Apologizing, which I've done many times over my long years, can be just as humiliating without a taunting recipient. However, when in fear of taunts versus a loss of integrity, delivering an apology is an easy choice for me.

Precisely! These are folks who think their candle shines brightest in the room and make assumption without asking a question--as if not to give away how little they really know. I think smart people are educated by their errors and, if it wasn't clear, I've encountered some very smart people here. However, ironically, I've learned more through exchanges with those who aren't as smart as they think. Those exchanges seem to compel me to think about my arguments in ways I sometimes haven't considered. It's not that I'm compelled by something they've said but by how to convey my thoughts or perspective more effectively given the likely data they've accessed to shape their arguments.

According to Professor Emeritus, Roy Lewicki, there are 6 elements and we should endeavor to incorporate as many of those elements as possible in our apologies. His findings are based on an Ohio State study involving 755 participants and Prof. Lewicki suggests that "Apologies really do work". I find that the smarter a person believes him or herself to be, the less likely he or she is willing to offer an apology. Apologizing for a wrong or an error is, in my view, a measure of character rather than a barometer of intelligence. In forums like this and others, where personal esteem or "Likes" are coveted, I have met few of such character. If you consider yourself a person of good character, I hope this article as interesting to you as it was to me.

If I understand your comparison correctly, adrenaline produces glucose from glycogen through glycogenolysis of liver and muscles cells; whereas, cortisol reverses this effect through glucogenesis, which is the production of glycogen. It appears that adrenaline raises the glucose available to the body while cortisol conserves available glucose through glycogen formation. Essentially, cortisol is an antagonist to the effects of adrenaline. As I understand, insulin counterbalances the extreme effects of glycogenolysis and glycogenesis on our blood sugar levels, which could be hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. Again, if I understand your comments correctly, glucogenesis refers to the increases of glycogen (glucose and oxygen reserves) in the tissues of the body rather than an increase in the level of glucose in our blood. Here's a link, which explains the terms and aspects of the processes we're discussing. Upon review, I see that I'm in error. You are correct, I read gluconeogenesis and glucogenesis as a reference to glycogenesis. Indeed, cortisol does initiate the production of glucose. Apologies, I simply must have my eyes checked soon.

You know, I was going to use psychosis to describe my impression of his condition but thought better of it. Although not a diagnosis, it does give the appearance of an issue I would address medically if I experienced the same.

Mine as well; however, I think Stephen's likely issues developed from his intentional efforts to enter this type of dreaming frequently. I think it best that the experience arises naturally without a directed mental effort that some researchers advocate. I think most of our dreams arise from our psychology and efforts to influence them could adversely affect that psychology especially when so little, I believe, is understood about them.

Although I find this type of dreaming enthralling, I believe it does have risks. I recall watching a interview with Stephen Laberge, who is a leading researcher in lucid dreaming. During that interview, he periodically engaged what appeared to me to be a nervous, repetitive motion. When asked about it by the interviewer, Stephen acknowledged that it was his way of assuring himself that his current experiences are real and not a dream. His behavior suggested to me that his intense study of lucid dreaming has led him to doubt and continually question his reality. In my view, his behavior suggested the real mental danger in frequently engaging this type of dreaming--who wants to live in constant doubt of one's reality?

I understand the science of dreaming and that science suggests to me that dreams of all types are as meaningful as the thoughts we experience throughout the day. During a typical day, my thoughts may wander from serious to whimsy as do, I think, most dream experiences. I think the question for most people is whether dreams have any real, practical value. Some say the reason why we forget them so easily is because they don't have any real value. Although the reason why we forget them is tied to the evolved nature of memory, that argument is very convincing. However, my personal experience suggests that occasionally, infrequently, dream content may have real and tangible value beyond what I believe most people think. What fascinates me most is how this unconscious experience allows us access to potentially profitable insights impossible to know because of the random nature of certain experiences. The closest conscious experience to this is akin to having inside information on a stock offering. Indeed, it is a fascinating study.

I believe you have described what's called lucid dreaming and I am intrigued by the experience as well. Lucid dreams--awareness that one is dreaming while within a dream--are pleasurable for my ability to experience the impossible within them (e.g., standing on the sun, breathing underwater, levitation) and fascinating for how they allow access to information impossible to otherwise obtain. The experience to me is like looking at one's infinite reflection while standing between two mirrors. The question of whether twitching, day old, blind pups are dreaming is fascinating as well. Some researchers believe that other animals, particularly canines, dream as we do and I am aware from study that congenitally blind individuals also dream. The question with newborn pups is whether they have accumulated enough sensory data to construct non-visual sensory content. I think, overall, we would have to admit that other animals experience meaningful dreams if we believe ours are. I welcome your further thoughts.

In the spirit of "Discuss life, school, work, anything", I've opened this discussion here because, as I've experienced, few opinions on this subject are actually based on science or serious study. As far as the science, precious few believe that such evidence even exist. After 30 years of study, even I question some of the science on the meaningful nature of dream content. I've changed my opinion and perspective on the relevance of dreams many times myself over the years. I could and have answered this question for myself but I'm interested in your opinion, sincerely. Perhaps you believe that dreams and dreaming are not a subject for scientific study or discussion and that such is best relegated to the slight of mind and gullible. I'm sure I've been framed as both for breaching this discussion. But I will make no judgement of you and will offer an apology if my comments suggests otherwise. This is not about dream interpretation but whether you think dreams are important and should be understood. I can tell you now, knowing what I know, that my feelings on the subject are mixed. So, what are your thoughts?

Under the US tax code, with one exception, no salary or wage is exempted from Medicare. In fact, an additional 0.9% is imposed on wages in excess of $200,000, which doesn't require employer matching funds. The only wages exempt from Social Security and Medicare are those paid by government recognized religious sects under specific conditions. Otherwise, there is no wage base limit for Medicare taxation but there is a $118,500 wage limit for the Social Security portion. Interestingly, the wealthy are entitled to social security payments although they may have resources rendering those payments superfluous.

Wasn't it Ben who also said, "A penny saved is a penny earned"? He was certainly a pragmatist.

Indeed; as I posted earlier, our government does impose compulsory Social Security taxes in support of a fund for the retired, elderly, and disabled. In the United States, no reported salary or wage income goes entirely untaxed; however, some taxpayers can entirely avoid Federal Withholding Taxes (FWT), which support government services other than Social Security. Also, the EIC I described earlier can essentially erase all taxes paid and due, including Social Security, for certain low-income individuals although it is applied to FWT payments. Through the EIC, the government essentially over-refunds FWT to eligible claimants. In this way, taxpayers can get credit for paying other taxes and be separately reimbursed through this EIC refund. Who was it that said "There's only two thing for certain in life, death and taxes."? According to Marvin Gaye, there's a third--Trouble!

For the US government, zero income tax is also possible; however, not for some state and most city governments that enforce income taxation.

Although the income, contribution and percentage caps differ, the US does permit forms of retirement contribution through salary withholdings by employers, which employees can elect to have withheld before or after applicable taxes. This is in addition to the IRA deduction I mentioned earlier, which is a retirement deduction separate from that withheld by the employer. The primary distinct between the two employer income withhold systems as I perceive, seems to be your government's mandatory compliance for employers. In a small way, our government enforces a Social Security Tax on employers and employees, which supports a fund for retired, elderly, and disabled individuals. Yes, our tax system is exceptionally complex with a purpose to squeeze every penny out of the working middle-class while requiring as little contribution as possible from the wealthy--in my opinion.

Interesting, how so? Also, for those who have interest, here's a link to a US Form 1040, which is the long form taxpayers file for return of excess taxes paid. It will give you some idea of what our government terms income, exemption, deduction, and credit. It is one of a multitude of forms and schedules our government produces for tax return and payment purposes.

If I understand tax equivalency between Australia and the US correctly, Superannuation tax deduction is called an IRA (Individual Retirement Account or, by some, Arrangement) deduction in the US. Negative gearing expenses are recouped in the form of depreciation and loan interest deduction as a business expense over a preset period, and Capital Gains tax are applicable here to the profit gain beyond the original purchase expense of an asset after it's sold, which isn't a tax deduction. In addition to the other deductions I mentioned earlier, the US government also allows what's called "Exemptions" ($4000) of income from taxation for every taxpayer and each of his/her dependents.

Over the years, I've prepared various forms of city, state, and federal tax returns and schedules here in the US for both businesses and individuals. The US government (federal) allows us certain deductions against our taxable income and credits against our taxes to reduce our yearly income tax burden. For example, we can reduce the income subject to taxes via a Standard Deduction Allowance or Itemized Deduction Allowances. The Standard deduction allows the reduction of our taxable income by one of three standardize amount according to our filing status, which is either Single, Married, or Head-of-Household. Itemized deductions allows for the reduction of our taxable income by an array of expenses that exceed the standardized amounts. Including in these types of deductions is the ability to claim a deduction for city and state taxes paid, extraordinary medical expenses, charitable contributions, certain investment, gambling and uninsured losses, unreimbursed business expenses and much more. Our federal government also allows an array of credits, which can change from year-to-year, against the taxes we owe according to various circumstances. For example, our government allows what's called an Earned Income Credit (EIC) for low-income taxpayers. This credit invariably results in the claimant receiving a return of taxes paid in excess of what the payer may have had deducted from his/her taxable income.

I agree; frankly, a lot of dream content is incidental to the metabolic processes that occur in the brain when we dream. I've had dreams involving physical injuries and pain with no real physical connection to my actual experiences upon arousal from sleep. These types of experiences suggest that dream content could be more about something happening mentally rather than what may be happening physically when we dream.

As I understood the MIT article accompanying it's video, scientist believe that amygdala neurons do not respond to positive emotional stimuli amid depression as perhaps they should. They believe there work could lead to better therapies "in the long-term." According to the article, researchers found that the neuron projections of the amygdala are "'very heterogeneous. They don't all do the same thing.'" As you may have read, researchers have also found a pattern where neurons projecting to the central amygdala were more "excited" by "aversive" cues than reward stimuli, which suggests they may now have a more focused target for pharmacological and selective study. However, the implication that these negative projections are somewhat responsive to positive stimulus is concerning. Perhaps that finding is unique to mice amygdala that has yet to be determined.

According to this MIT News article, neuroscientists believe they have identified the neurons associated with how we process our emotions. The article describes how tagging neurons of mice amygdala with light-sensitive proteins and then exposing these study animals to fear and pleasure stimuli led to their preliminary findings. The article suggests how identifying this emotional circuitry could further our understanding and treatment of mental illness and depression. Enjoy!