DrmDoc

You are probably referring to Fatal Familial Insomnia (FFI), which is condition caused by a rare genetic disorder involving a mutated prion protein. Although I'm not aware of any current research involving the treatment of FFI with Orexin-A, there has been promising research on the restorative effects of this peptide in sleep deprivation studies.

Although you remain you after brain injury, I think you become a lesser you; i.e., a you without access to the information, qualities and abilities that the damage parts of your brain contributed to the you prior to injury. However, through brain plasticity, it is possible that the prior you could emerge from such brain trauma. I hope this helps.

I think words you are looking for is congenital blindness. I hope this helps.

As an addendum to this topic, readers may want to check-out the July/August 2012 special issue Of Discover Magazine for the article,"Do You Have Superhuman Vision?". This article suggests that "An unknown number of women may perceive millions of colors invisible to the rest of us." The article appears to provide further evidence of how we may not all perceive color uniformly.

Actually, the dreaming brain appears and behaves much like that of a schizophrenic, which are both prominently characterized by low prefrontal activation (hypofrontality). However, the specifics of what causes this low prefrontal activation between the dreaming and schizophrenic brain may be distinct.

Within the context of my additional comments, yes indeed.

You are construing the nature of your overall brain function with the consciousness that brain function creates. Everything within a dream, including your persona and awareness, is produced by your overall brain function and it is that function which makes the distinction as to what you know and what you may not know within dream content. The imagery in your dreams are interpretations of the unconscious mental experiences that arise from the neural activations you experienced amid sleep. Your waking-state brain interpreted those neural activations as a scenario in which you were not aware of the joke about to transpire. In the content of your dream, you are a characterization or representation of only a small part of your awareness rather than the orchestrator of your entire dream, which is the whole of your active brain function at that time; i.e., your awareness within a dream is like a torch in the dark where you only see and understand what is apparent in the light rather than what is hidden in the dark. You were not aware of the hooded girl's identity for the same reasons you were not aware you were dreaming at the time--the experience was merely a personification of your unconscious thoughts and perceptions that may have regarded the type of scenario you experience in the dream. I hope this helps.

Quantum theory is rooted in analytical thinking and experimentation (via particle collision), which is essential to any discussion on the origin of the universe. Quantum theory regards the nature of existence or physical reality at its smallest level wherein the accepted and verified laws of physics, applicable to the large, do not seem to apply. In my view, analytical thought and experimentation regarding phenomena outside the boudaries of physical law is an investigation of the metaphyical--which is an investigation of magic although that is not the focus of this thread or the article referenced above. My musings here were merely referencing a perspective on analytical thought via quantum theory that appears to lead to a perspective less analytical in nature.

I agree; however, holding a scientific frame of thought--relative to quantum theory--isn't easy wherein certain laws of physics (as we may currently understand them) do not seem to apply and where particles are ascribed mystical names relative to their nature such as up quark, down quark, and, most peculiarly, strange quark--strange indeed.

I've seen this article and I believe it provides a very cogent perspective. However, analytical thought, to my chagrin, has recently swayed my perspective somewhat to the contrary when considering and discussing the origin of the universe. Although some supreme supernatural being as a creator is not my position, I believe that finding and considering that something (the universe) can arise from nothing--or some theorhetical singularity or collision between multi-dimensional strings without explanation of their origins--is in an of itself a belief in magic and the mystical, which is little more than religion. Isn't quantum theory and all its eloquent mathmatical expressions of analytical thought little more than an effort to quantify the metaphysical? These are merely my observations and not an intent to make this a discussion about religion, which, like politics, I abhor.

Emotions are also mental phenomena; however, it is a mistake to perceive the imagery of dreams as "symbols" because they are not. The imagery in our dream are essentially how our waking-state brain interpret something it believes it experienced amid sleep. Dreaming is a product of activation in the brain arising from the brainstem activation and deactivations at the onset of atonia, which is the suspension of muscle elasticity and gross locomtion. The residual effects of those activations in the brain amid atonic sleep is what our waking-state brain seeks to quantify amid our arousal from sleep. Essentailly, dreams quantify or interpret our unconscious neural experiences.

Dreams seldom reflect or suggest their literal experiences or depictions because they are not experiences or depictions in literal or physical reality. Dreams are first and foremost mental experiences, which suggests that they more readily describe mental phenomena. Therefore, dreams of death and dying may interpret or relate to some mental or psychological experience rather than the literal nature of the experience. For example, dreams about death and dying might suggests the dreamer's thoughts regarding a state of deep depression, ineffectiveness, and withdrawal from the viberant experience of life.These regard a state of mind resulting in a kind of mental death or ineffectiveness. I hope this helps.

Well, with equal respect, I don't blindly worship at the alter of a study's findings without a critical analysis of its scope, content, and procedures regardless of its reputation. All that I have suggested is a possibility based on known sensory processing abnormalities that provide clear evidence of non-uniformity in how we may individually perceive and interpret visual information. Although I understand your passion, we are all merely rendering our "personal opinion" based on our individual perspective and study of the available research. Clearly, we perceive this subject differently--which, again, is all I am suggesting. Also, on a separate note to all, I do not engage the point/reputation option on this board as I have stated elsewhere. Should anyone find their comments rated, it was not my doing. That option, as I have learned, is a meaningless popularity game that at least one particularly vindictive and ego obsessed juvenile anonymously plays here to often pit one poster against another in the mistaken belief that reputation points equal credibility. I should think that commentary enveloping substantive study encompassing many years and multiple desciplines rather than artfully appropriated Wikipedic references equal credibility. Nevertherless, should I agree or disagree with any comments here, I will express my opinion in words rather than points.

I disagree; dyslexia proves that certain sensory and neurological abnormalities can cause non-uniformity in how we may individually perceive and interpret sensory information. Although a color imbalance from the eye could result in some forms of dyslexia, such an imbalance cannot account for the more common symptom of word reversal and an inability to discern right from left. Regarding the study you cited, what was the sampling of volunteers? Was the sampling large enough to include aberrant subjects? For example, if the sampling involved 10 participants, where less than .05 percent of the area population is of aberrant vision, then the sampling was not large enough to include data relevant to the whole of that population location. Did the study include aberrant vision participants such as synesthesia and dyslexia sufferers? Although your study appears to account for the norm, it may not be inclusive of the abnormal. Again, my position is that a condition (neurological, physiological or psychological), which renders a distinction in how we may individually perceive and interpret our surroundings, supports the possibility of an aberrant distinction in how we may individually perceive visual information. For me it is simple, you are suggesting that we all see the same thing in the same way; whereas, I am suggesting the possibility that we may not.

So, theoretically, if I understand correctly, there could be an "imbalance in the colour information coming in from the eyes", which could go undiagnosed as dyslexia, resulting in a distinction in how an individual might perceive certain visual information? Doesn't this suggest the possibility of non-uniformity in how we may individual perceive and interpret visual information?

Perhaps you misunderstood my point; if we can prove that the human brain may not be uniform in its interpretation of sensory information from person to person, then it is also possible that our individual interpretation of color may not be uniform. Although autism is a good example of non-uniformity, conditions like synesthesia and dyslexia prove that how we individually interpret sensory, such as color, may not be the same. Dyslexia in particular is a condition that can go undiagnosed for years because the sufferer isn't aware that his interpretation of visual information does not conform to the norm and we, as his peers, do not perceive his disorder in his behavior. Regarding the color analogy, the idea is that the aberrant perception of red as green infers the reverse--that the individual also perceives geen as red. The individual may perceive all other colors as you or I with the exception of these two. If the individual experiences that his green perspective of red is commonly coordinated with the colors commonly coordinated with red, then he may never learn of the distinction in how his brain interprets red. This is not about the commonality of sensory organs (rods & cones) but rather about the individuality of the organ (brain) that interprets the sensory.

You're not losing your mind but may be assimilating, as you said, your surrounding sensory experiences amid mirco sleeping. However, you should consider seeing a sleep disorder specialist rather than rely in any opinion here.

I disagree; the autistic brain provides empirical evidence that our individual interpretation of sensory information, such as color, isn't uniform but rather dependent on how our individual brains process that information. There is evidence suggesting that the autistic brain does not integrate sensory data as effortlessly as a normal or average brain. This appears to explain why some of the afflicted with this condition have difficulty processing visual, aural, and tactile stimuli contemporaneously. Synesthesia is another good example or non-uniform perception and processing of sensory stimuli. Although we may share similar sensory structures (e.g., rods & cones) and neural pathways, there could be distinct variations in those structures and pathways that may significantly alter how we individually perceive and process color and other types of sensory information.

If there is evidence contrary to an assertion, the best approach is to present that evidence plainly with your supporting sources. If a respondent cannot present a cogent rebuttle, ignores your evidence, or end his or her participation without comment, your perspective is more than likely valid. Admitting that someone's perspective is likely more valid than ours is something our massive and fragile ego will not frequently permit.

Rhetorical musings notwithstanding, those questions are not so difficult to answer for those who are versed in the science of the dreaming brain or for those who are sincerely interested in studying the substantial volumes of credible, scientifically obtained, peer-reviewed research enveloping dreaming and the dreaming brain. Did you know that dreaming appears to be an altered state of consciousness as suggested by the almost conscious levels of neural activity the brain experiences amid the sleep process. Perhaps the best place to begin your search for the answers you may seek is with brain evolution and how the various components of the sleep process likely evolved.

I think I understand; you are referring to a functional bias--a bias originating from the way all brains appear to process information. However, can we be sure that all brains have some functional commonality. For example, I see the color red because that was how someone identified that color to me as a child and as concurred by my peers. However, red may be green and green may be red from my perspective; therefore, what I've learned to perceive as red may not truly be the color that others percieve. From another perspective, autism is a prime example that not all brain receive and process information in the same manner. Nevertheless, these non-conforming functional brains give us a functional perspective that enhances what we generally know and are capable of knowing about brain function.

Indeed there are limitation to non-human brain experimentation because they are not human; however, coupling these experiments with what we learn from human brain injury, disease, malformation,and disfunction closes most of the gaps in missing data. My position is that the knowledge we seek about the nature of human brain function is not beyond our reach when we pursue and integrate all of the available avenues of research at our disposal. Certainly, the ape frontal lobe may not "contain the ingredient" essential to humanity but that hasn't harmed our efforts to gain solid insights regarding the nature of the human frontal from ape experimentation. Such experiments demostrate few functional differences between the human brain and the brain of other spieces.

I've notice how a prominent lucid dreaming researchers (e.g., LaBerge) has developed behavorial ticks to assure himself that he is experiencing reality rather than a lucid dream. A persistent doubt that one is experiencing true reality is evidence of schizophrenia. True reality involves real life-changing consequences; therefore, there should never be any doubt that one is experience reality. Excessive lucid dreaming, as LaBerge's behavior suggests, may have mental consequences beyond the mastery of the dreamer. It is best to let the experience occur as a natural progression of your sleep experience. I hope this helps.

Lucid dreaming isn't as much about creating the experience as it is about conditioning or training yourself to recognize the signs and experiences that informs your perception of being within a dream; e.i., lucid dreaming is about recognizing the signs that you are dreaming. Think about the last time you experienced a lucid dream and the experiences that made you aware that you were dreaming. Then review in your mind, just before slumber, those experiences with the intent that should they occur know that you are dreaming. Say to yourself, that if you have an experience like levitation, for example, I will know that I am dreaming. As a caution, too much lucid dreaming does not promote mental health.