DrmDoc

In my haste, I did not include these reference, http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1611494 and Absence of shivering in the cat during paradoxical sleep without atonia, for that quote. Please pardon my oversight. Also, low-decerebrate studies have shown that test animals experience atonia when not being fed or otherwise stimulated for the duration of their survival period (Proposed model of postural atonia in a decerebrate cat). This suggests the evolutionary root and association of atonia, which is mediated by neurons in one of the most primitive segments of our central nervous system, with metabolic mediation amid periods of privation and inactivity.

I've made a personal study of dreams and the dreaming brain for over three decades and have written a couple of books on the subject. In that time, I've notice how little some researchers understand about their own research. Focusing on a specific idea or area of study without a proper foundation has likely limited their ability to fully comprehend what their findings actually suggests. The proper foundation for understanding the components of sleep or any component of brain function begins with brain evolution and where in that evolution did those components first likely appear. If we can prove that atonia evolved independent of REM and that REM can arise independent of atonia, then it is highly likely that atonia did not evolve to serve the REM state. First, atonia defines the loss or lack of muscle tone or elasticity rather than muscle paralysis, as is the standard medical definition, which is indeed a condition opposite the ready and responsive state of muscle tonal posture. Therefore, atonia also describes a loss or lack of muscle readiness. Atonia is mediated by the peri-locus ceruleus, which is located in that part of our central nervous system that does not generate the low-amplitude, high-frequency EEG waves associated with REM (http://sleep.health....leep/REM-sleep/). The locus ceruleus is situated in the metencephalic segment of brainstem, which envelopes neural functions considered less recent in our contemporary brain development than those brain structures (neocortex) where dream generation is thought to occur. Therefore, the neural components of sleep that generate atonia likely developed or evolved in what would become our neurostructure before that structure was capable of generating dreams. This suggest that atonia evolved for some reason other than the inhibition of movement amid dreaming. Animal studies have shown that "...subceruleus lesions created REM sleep without atonia." Therefore, atonia is not essential to the production of REM. The position of the structure believed to mediate atonia in the pimitive segment of brainstem coupled with the creation of REM sleep without atonia suggest that atonia likely did not evolve to serve the REM state. Regarding http://www.scienceda...80102093936.htm, if you'll read the article, orexin-A is indeed described as a peptide that is produced by a "small mumber of neurons".The article goes on to say that orexin-A effectiveness is cognitive related rather than energy boosting. The article states that this peptide "has no effect on performance if the animals where not sleep deprived." Rather than fueling or boosting the energy level of test animals, this article suggest that the orexin peptide merely establishes normal acuity or cognitive efficiency in brain function, which is unlike the boosting effects of energizers such as glucose or anphetimines.

Actually, REM didn't evolve as a means to solidify memory (muscle or mental) or to prevent movement amid sleep. Although REM appears to benefit our mental acuity, atonia (essentially the loss of muscle readiness) likely evolved as means to sustain physical and neural systems more vital to survival among ancestral animals than muscle readiness amid their periods of inactivity or rest. Atonia isn't muscle paralysis amid REM as some seem to believe. We don't move amid REM or dream sleep because dreams are not true physical material experiences; i.e., they do not involve the actual physical experiences of true reality. The sleeping brain, for the most part, is able to distinguish that difference. Dreams don't generally generate the sensory experiences that activate our gross motor response systems. It is likely that the benefits of REM sleep arise from the cessation of muscle readiness, which allows for the production of Orixen-A a neuotransmitter shown to restore mental acuity amid REM deprivation studies.

You may want to read a bit more of the science, in discussion above, because maintaining the sleep state is unlikely the purpose of dreaming given dreams can and do cause arousal from sleep. It is likely that dreaming is an evolved byproduct of activations in the brain arising from vestigial metabolic processess associated with the prolonged inactivity and food privation our animal ancestors likely experienced.

I'm not sure of the statment you are making here. That reference doesn't appear to support the idea that intelligence is essential to consciousness. It appears to be a references for the "continuum" of consciousness as measured in humans. It is my view that basic consciousness, relative to all animal species, is suggested by some basic evidence of awareness such as "arousal and responsiveness" to stimuli, which does not require intelligence to engage.

If I understand correctly, you are referring to the limitation of direct surgical experimentation on a healthy human brain and subject. If so, then I agree; however, I disagree with the notion that animal brain research hasn't produced solid results. The example I gave earlier (luocotomy)was indeed a solid result--for our understanding of frontal function in human psychosis--from direct experimentation on the frontal lobe of chimps. What brain injury in humans and concurrent comparative studies of the healthy brain of other species provide is a well-defined picture of the functional nature of nearly every intricacy of the human brain. Although normal human brain study may be beyond the boundaries of some surgical experimentation, non-surgical experimentation via drug studies and comparative non-invasive technologies have and continue to produce remarkable insights on the nature of human brain function.

In my view consciousness does not necessitate intelligence; a species could be considered conscious and not have the measure we consider intelligence. Consciousness, at its most basic level, is merely suggested by some evidence of awareness. What distinguishes our measure of consciousness from lesser forms is a mind that enables responses beyond those considered instinctual; e.i., our measure of mind enables proactive behaviors rather than those consider reactive, programmed, or instinctive.

I believe the solution to that problem resides in a basis algebraic expression that is a basis of logic thought: If a=b and b=c, then a=c. Cognitive skills (a) are evidence of some reasoning process (b) and reasoning (b) is evidence of consciousness (c); therefore, cognitive skills (a) are evidence of consciousness (c). In my opinion, there is very little distinction between cognitive skills and consciousness.

In fact, we do have access to human brain study via brain injury, anormality, surgical intervention, and equilvalent animal studies. We've learned a great deal about the nature of human brain function from animal studies in particular. For example, luocotomy (lobotomy), which earned a Noble for its founder and continues to be in limited use today, originated from primate behavioral studies. There isn't very much we can't or don't understand about our brain given our continued access to the types of brain studies I've cited. Also, I agree that our overall understanding of the brain relies on understanding of its basic components beginning from its most primitive to its most recent --relative to how our brain likely evolved to its present state.

I agree; behavior and behavioral responses to non-verbal cognitive tests are indeed another way we are able to assess the equivalent cognitive skills of other species.

I disagree; there are tests or standards for measuring aspects of consciousness which, I believe, is set by humanity itself. The only species in which we are likely able to fully determine consciousness is our own. We can determine whether other species have some level of consciousness equivalent to our own through tests based on our understanding of the human measures for consciousness; e.g, a standard test for self-awareness through the use of mirrors. We have use such test on our infants to determine at what stage they develope signs of self-awareness and on primates to determine a similar distinction. Therefore, language is not our only means for understanding or conveying consciousness. We use the non-verbal tests proven for our species to give us evidence of what cognitive skills other species may have. Whatever skills we find similar to our own in other species are evidence for consciousness. From a neurological perspective, much of what we understand about the nature of human brain function has been determine through animal tests and studies, from fish to fowl to primate. This in itself is evidence of some equilvalency between humanity and other species inclusive of consciousness.

All forms of life require the intake of nutrients to survive. Maintaining the ability to actively seek and procure nutrients requires the expenditure of energy. Although prolonged dormancy may conserve energy through periods of privation, energy renewal and uptake remains essential to sustaining life. When animals adapt the ability to absorb a stable and steady supply of nutrients amid a inactive, dormant state, then the need for sleep could become unnecessary. However, I am not aware of any nutrient source or catalyst that is stable or steady. Even the sun is not such a source or catalyst because of the earths rotation.

Below are comments I've posted in this and other forums regarding the nature of sleep: "If some of us do not know why we sleep, it is because we haven't examined how sleep may have evolved among sleeping species. Nearly every species enters a state of rest that could be interpreted as sleep. This suggests a common evolutionary advantage to the sleep process among sleeping species; i.e., we would not have sleeping species if sleep did not offer some survival advantage to ancestral species. When we examine the neurological components of sleep in most animals, we find that its various attributes arose at varying stages in neural evolution. Contemporary sleep processes in the human brain appear to be mediated by neurons in the lateral hypothalamus. Further down the brainstem, other components of the sleep process appear to suggest an earlier evolutionary incarnation of sleep. During the earliy stages of sleep, the brain engages in diminishing activity until the onset of atonia, which is the lost of muscle elasticity. Interestingly, atonia can and does occur in animals without hypothalmic neural structure. This positions atonia as one of sleep's earliest incarnation because it appears to be mediated by neural structures earlier in the brain's evolution than that suggested by the hypothalamus. If the brain evolved from some earlier form, we should be able to find some footprint of that form, which we can trace back to some earlier point. Most researchers agree that the brainstem is a primitive component of our central nervous system. Of the brainstems components, the spinal brain (myelencephalon) appears to be the most primitive segment because it most closely resemble the notochord development we find in existant species of primitive animal life. When we examine the afferent neural systems of the spinal brain, we find those associated with feeding. This suggests that ancestral animals at this stage in brain evolution engaged behaviors requiring the intake of nutrients. Although the efferents neural paths of the spinal brain suggests movement at this stage in earlier ancestral animals, movement most likely evolved with the evolution of the metencephalon where we find more sophistocated afferent neural systems associated with sound detection. The ability to detect sound suggests ancestral animals at the stage where they were orienting themselves either away from or towards sensory stimuli. Early spinal brained animals were probably not as mobile as later metencephlic animals. This suggested lack of mobility suggests that these animals had to adopt a stratergy that allowed for survival in the absences of readily available nutrients. In some archeological literature, it has been suggested that the earliest forms of complex life where a combination of plant and animal. During the prolonged absence of sunlight or nutrients in their primodial sea, immobile animals that could suspend their need for sustainance likely had a survival advantage over those that could not. During the atonic stage of sleep, we find a suspension of muscle readiness with energy devotion to organs more critical to our survival. Atonia appears to be mediated by the metencephalon/myelencephalon brainstem segments. In decerebration studies, test animals entered an atonic state while not being fed or otherwise stimulated for the duration of their survival. This suggests that the earliest components of sleep evolved likely as a means to sustain survival through periods of prolonged food privation. Although food privation is not a severe concern for some of us, our modern brain rest upon a primitive foundation that was dependent on the periodic suspension of activity to conserve energy for more vital physiological systems. In our brain develpment, evolution built upon its successful systems rather than replace those systems. Sleep evolved from a vestigial need that has become integral to how our contemporary brain functions."

And there we have it. It is my opinion that you, like many who are disinterested and unstudied in dream science, consider all dream research and study "junk science and pseudoscience" regardless of the preponderance of peer-reviewed, scientifically obtained evidence to the contrary. Of the thousands of links to scholarly articles, that was all you found? For the readers of this discussion with serious interest, the following is from a prior search of peer-reviewed articles whose links can be found with a Google Scholar search: Taken from this peer-reviewed article The Effects of Current-Concern- and Nonconcern-Related Waking Suggestions on Nocturnal Dream Content, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and obtained through the EBSCO Host of an online university, Doctors Nikles, Breckt, Klinger, and Bursell concludes the following from their study of student participants over several nights in their sleep laboratory: "…the evidence from this and other investigations confirms that dreams are meaningfully related to dreamers' current concerns and hence to their real lives. The findings of the present study also confirm the importance of current-concern content in moderating the effectiveness of presleep suggestions. They therefore contribute further evidence that dreams reflect current goal pursuits and that volitional processes continue to be active enough during sleep to influence dream imagery." In this similarly obtain paper titled Dream Content and Psychological Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study of the Continuity Hypothesis and published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, Doctors Pesant and Zadra concludes: "In summary, ours is the first longitudinal study to examine the relationship between people's level of psychological well-being and corresponding dream content characteristics. The findings obtained provide further empirical evidence for the continuity hypothesis and indicate that affect and social interactions represent two psychologically important dimensions in dream content that merit further study." And in this paper, Relation Between Waking Sport Activities, Reading, and Dream Content in Sport Students and Psychology Students, published in the Journal of Psychology, Dr. Schredl's study suggests a relationship between waking-life experience and dreaming with: "To summarize, the results of this study clearly show an effect of time spent in a particular waking-life activity on the rate of incorporating the waking-life activity into dreams. The findings also indicate that factors such as emotional involvement and associated worries might be of importance in explaining the relation between waking and dreaming. Future studies using longitudinal designs would shed more light on this relation and would help researchers to derive a more precise formulation of the continuity hypothesis." The links to these articles do not work outside of the university's library site. However, I was able to find the following links to abstracts confirming these peer-reviewed papers conclusions: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1998-04530-018 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.20212/abstract http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a925359142 Which confirms your earlier admission of not knowing "what meaning means" relative to dream content. For what other reason might there be a coding methodology of dream content for study if not for meaning--which, by the way, is an effort to determine the relevance, if any, of dream content to the psychological or material experiences of the dreamer.

Your independent review confirms, as I have said, that the site is a link to reliable evidence of ongoing scientific study of dream content for meaning contrary to an unsubstantiated claim to the contrary. If other followers here select the links and review the site, they will confirm what your efforts have revealed. If "high-quality peer-reviewed" journals and articles are your sincere interest, what was the results of your Google Scholar search? New directions in the study of dream content using the Hall and Van de Castle coding system [/color][/size][/b] [color=#0000cc]Methods and measures for the [b]study [/b]of [b]dream [/b]content[/color]Start with a Google Scholar search.

As you well know, selecting The Quantitative Study of Dreams link is not in itself a Google Scholar search for Quantitative Dream Study. As it was originally presented, The Quantitative Study of Dreams overall and readily contradicts your prior claim regarding "...the 'meaning' of a dream--or any other cognitive experience, for that matter--is not really an item of scientific study." A Google Scholar search, as many here know and as I suggested to you, can and does provide a plethora of readily available links to the types of scholarly works you described. What's most "suspicious" here is your attempt to construe the above link as a resource other than as I originally presented. However, if pursued with sincere interest, navigating to that link's references is no more difficult, involved, or "suspicious" than at any similar science resource site. If the followers of this discussion select the links and do the scholarly searchers themselves, all I have here stated will be confirmed.

Your comments,"And really, to be honest, can't, since the "meaning" of a dream--or any other cognitive experience, for that matter--is not really an item of scientific study," were very clear. Indeed there has been some ongoing quantitative scientific study of dream content for meaning. The links above, particularly The Quantitative Study of Dreams, stands in clear contradiction to your frankly stated position. In view of your uncertainty as to "what meaning means", I suggest, relative to dream content, a Google Scholar search on Quantitative Dream Study for your future references--if you are of serious interest. Before openly declaring a position on any aspect of this subject, I advise a search of the science, particularly the neuroscience, to everyone of sincere interest. What this science suggests about brain evolution and the nature of the active unconscious brain amid dreaming is fascinating.

Empirically, dreams are unconscious, mental experiences--meaning experiences that play-out in our mind amid an unconscious state. To suggest otherwise would be disengenuous; to believe otherwise is without basis in the science "we both know about." Given this general nature of dreams and dreaming, what I proposed to Appolinaria was one possible way to view the unconscious, mental effects her dream experiences likely suggested. A dream about eating fruit, for example, interprets something the dreamer believes she mentally experienced unconsciously. The whole of that experience regards something she unconsciously perceived as a mental occurrence. What possible meaning could the mental occurrence shown by consuming fruit suggest? Consumption of something she perceives as inwardly (mentally) satisfying perhaps? What I proposed to Appolinaria was that possibility. Surely an adult wouldn't select your profile, then proceed to your ongoing discussions with, apparently, the sole intent to anonymously manipulate the tenor of your amaible and constructive discussions via the negative point/reputation option. Although known to me from our initial exchanges at this discussion site, I presume from such behavior that this individual would rather remain anonymous.

If considered in the context of what I previously wrote--that dreams are unconscious mental experiences arising from the synthesis of activations in the brain that occur amid the sleep cycle--there is most certainly peer-reviewed science. 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've noticed that some who post here consider this board their private kindom and seek to discourage discussions on topics that they have precious little to offer beyond adolescent humor or a limited, unstudied, Wikipedic knowledge base. There is credible, peer reviewed science on this subject should one care to explore. I wish you well.

If you'd like to understand what these dream images might suggest, try adding the word mental to your descriptions. For example, dream fruit becomes mental fruit, which describes something perceived as food for the mind rather than body. Dream zeppelins become mental zeppelins, which could suggest an archaic transport for one's mental efforts or aspirations. Mental fountains in the sky might suggest how you unconsciously perceive a source of inner satisfication that issues from above or beyond your level of understanding. Dreams most likely regard our unconscious mental experiences and are, therefore, more likely to interpret something mental. Although an oversimplification, adding the word mental to every key description in your dreams could bring you closer to understanding whether they have any relevance to your conscious experience. I hope this helps as well.

Although psychology provides no clear answer, neuroscience comes close. Dreaming is a byproduct of activations in the brain that occurs at the onset of atonia, which is the release of muscle tone. There is evidence which suggests that these activations, amid atonia, are vestiages of a period in brain evolution when the energy stores of ancestral animals were used to sustain those physiological system--more vital to survival than muslce tone--amid periods of prolonged inactivity, rest, or food privation. When the brain becomes active amid sleep, it does what it has evolved to do, which is interpret what has aroused its function. That interpretation is what we recall as dreams upon arousal from sleep. More precisely, dreams are how our waking-state brain interpret the residual effects of our brain's activation amid sleep. Dreams are how our waking brain interprets what it believes it experienced amid sleep. The next obvious question is, are dreams meaningful? Dreaming is an unconscious experience; therefore, dreams are interpretations of unconscious experience. Essentially, dreams interpret something we believe we've experienced unconsciously. As an experience that occurs wholly within the brain, dreaming is also a mental experience. Therefore, dreams are likely interpretations of unconscious mental experiences. Dream memories appear to be the product of a waking-state mind that has become consciously aware of something that has had an unconscious mental affect on its properties. I hope this helps.

Thought, as it relates to brain function and its data assessment processes, is difficult to quantify in simple terms because our thought processes require a concert of neural activity eveloping the whole of brain function. Thought could be defined as a process of mentation or a mentation response to the perception and assessment of sensory data arising from sources internal or external to the body. It's safe to say that our mentation responses likely begin when sensory data enters the hypothalamus, which is where our survival drives originate. Our survival drives are likely at the center of all our thought processes.

Actually, the thought to arouse from sleep and bed begins in the most primitive parts of our central nervous system. Sleep appears to be regulated by neurons in that part of the brain associated with our basal drives and motivation, which is the hypothalamus. More recent data suggest that the thalamus also play a prominent role. Sleep satisfies a physiological need. When that need is met, arousal from sleep begins. Upon arousal, internal drives such as hunger initiate those mentation or thought processes associated with satisfying those drives. I hope this helps.